President-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has invited Liu Chao-hsuan (劉兆玄) to serve as premier in his Cabinet, the members of which will be formally announced later this month. The media have already named several people tipped as Cabinet members — mostly familiar faces, giving the impression that the same old Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is back in town. An atmosphere of freshness and change is conspicuously lacking.
Some of those named include Ma’s top aide KMT Legislator Su Chi (蘇起), former vice minister of economic affairs Yiin Chii-ming (尹啟銘), KMT Legislator Lee Jih-chu (李紀珠), former deputy minister of finance Sean Chen (陳沖) and Taichung Mayor Jason Hu (胡志強). Some of these may be richly experienced and capable of producing the results Ma wants, but he and Liu must consider the impact of choosing old blood for the Cabinet. These people were all ministers or deputy ministers in the KMT administration that lost the 2000 election. Why was the KMT voted out of the presidential office if that Cabinet was so effective?
The lack of new faces means either that the party has been unable to recruit new talent over the past eight years, or that new talent is not being given a chance because the party prioritizes seniority.
Ma must try to strike a balance between the KMT’s conservative tradition and the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) daring use of new faces in the Cabinet.
The Cabinet will likely be made up of technocrats, thus returning government control to this group. However, despite their expertise and experience, this group is often out of step with public opinion, which was one of the reasons the general public was dissatisfied with the previous KMT government.
A Cabinet controlled by technocrats will not feel — or understand — public pressure. In the past, this has caused dissatisfaction among KMT legislators and county and city officials, who have felt that they should be credited with maintaining the party’s influence, yet technocrats retained control of the party’s administrative resources. KMT technocrats, meanwhile, have often complained that the connections between local politicians and local businesses were creating excessive lobbying pressure. This has led to conflict and is one of the reasons the party has split three times. In today’s democratic era, the KMT needs to adjust its strategies to give more consideration to the importance of public opinion.
Although Ma has said he would make his Cabinet appointments based solely on talent, all of those tipped to receive a post are Mainlanders. This will fuel DPP accusations that the KMT seeks to create a Mainlander government. To deliver on his promise that the government will work for social justice and ethnic equality, Ma should not only consider the proportion of women in the Cabinet, but also select a Cabinet that is ethnically representative. Otherwise, total KMT domination may quickly start worrying voters.
During the party’s eight years in opposition, many of its members won public approval, as seen at election time. It only stands to reason that the Cabinet should include a certain proportion of publicly elected officials. There is still time for Ma and Liu to expand their search and surprise the public with a Cabinet stacked with new talent.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS