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.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS