The approval ratings for Premier Liu Chao-hsiuan’s (劉兆玄) Cabinet have dropped steadily since it took office. There are many reasons for this.
Liu has said the constant stream of criticism from the media and commentators is partly to blame. He takes particular offense at critical remarks made by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators and commentators who usually favor the party, complaining that their lack of support for Cabinet policies is undermining public confidence in the government. He has even suggested that the KMT use party discipline to restrict what its lawmakers say in public. Meanwhile, the Government Information Office has reportedly told state-owned Radio Taiwan International not to criticize China too harshly.
The Cabinet’s moves indicate that Liu and his ministers don’t really understand the workings of democratic politics.
Under the constitutional system, the executive branch and legislative branch are meant to balance each other. Lawmakers represent the public and are responsible only to voters, so they are entitled to monitor the government’s performance. Liu’s attempt to restrict their freedom of speech is a violation of this basic democratic principle.
The media is duty bound to take a critical approach to politics. When the media sing the praises of the government and cover up for it, this is a sign of deep corruption. Under former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), the “pro-green” media — those that supported Chen and the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) — made every effort to conceal or deny Chen’s misconduct, thus accelerating the spread of corruption and ultimately leading to the DPP’s electoral defeat.
This kind of behavior has earned the revulsion of the public, and rightly so. Why, then, do former opposition figures reverse their attitude as soon as they find themselves in government, refusing to endure media criticism and even seeking to interfere in the media?
Under the DPP’s eight-year rule, the “pro-unification” (pro-KMT) media were sharply critical of the government. Many DPP supporters saw this as a case of ideology dominating political comment. In the months since the KMT regained power, viewers and readers have been curious to see if the “pro-unification” media would continue to monitor the government, or whether they would change their tune, proving that they only “monitored” the DPP government for political reasons.
As it turns out, with some notable exceptions such as talk show host Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), most “pro-unification” commentators have acted professionally over the past few months, being just as critical of the KMT government as their “pro-green” counterparts. More commentators are taking to heart their independent role as media workers.
The Taiwanese media is really a world wonder. With so many TV channels and live talk shows, any event may be scrutinized by a dozen talk shows that same day, followed by public criticism in newspaper editorials and readers’ letters the next day.
Such a weight of public opinion can indeed bring enormous pressure to bear on the government, but such is the nature of democracy. If the government can’t take the pressure, how will it shape up when the going really gets tough?
Liu’s Cabinet is a group of aged, even outdated figures. It is made up of technocrats left over from the last century who have never undergone the test of democratic politics. Unaccustomed to the democratic process, they shy away from cameras and journalists. Rarely do they ever take the initiative to hold press conferences to defend their policies.
How can the public have any confidence in such a government?
A policy can only be accepted by all sides after it has been formed through a certain political process, so a leader in the democratic era must be able to shuttle freely between “policy” and “politics.” Without either one of them, no accomplishment can be made.
Technocrats see policy as an internal decision of their elite group. This was acceptable and even efficient under authoritarian rule, but in the democratic era it is no longer so convenient. Officials have to throw policies into the public domain for comprehensive examination, so that policy and politics can interact effectively.
Officials should treat opinions expressed in the media with due humility. In the case of useful suggestions, they should accept them and adjust their policies accordingly. As to the not so useful ones, they should take the initiative to clarify the issue in public and show their appreciation anyway.
Democracy is an inconvenient truth. In the process of forming and implementing policies, the government should have a long-term vision on the one hand, and communicate with the public on the other. It should adjust policy direction and content whenever necessary, so as to make them even better. In this way, the government can really be at the service of the people. Such a transformation may be inconvenient, but it is a process that must be endured.
Above all, democracy is an ability that has to be learned. It is a skill that people can only acquire through their own experience of the democratic process, so we must give the public the chance to gain that experience.
It may be a little bit chaotic at the beginning, but the public will gradually gain the skills needed in a democracy. Then, and only then, will the quality of Taiwan’s democracy improve.
Lii Ding-tzann is a professor at the Institute of Sociology of National Tsing Hua University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Taiwan’s victory in the World Baseball Softball Confederation Premier12 championship is an historic achievement. Yet once again this achievement is marred by the indignity of the imposed moniker “Chinese Taipei.” The absurdity is compounded by the fact that none of the players are even from Taipei, and some, such as Paiwan catcher Giljegiljaw Kungkuan, are not even ethnically Chinese. The issue garnered attention around the Paris Olympics, yet fell off the agenda as Olympic memories retreated. “Chinese Taipei” persists, and the baseball championship serves as a reminder that fighting “Chinese Taipei” must be a continuous campaign, not merely resurfacing around international
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hypersonic missile carried a simple message to the West over Ukraine: Back off, and if you do not, Russia reserves the right to hit US and British military facilities. Russia fired a new intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missile known as “Oreshnik,” or Hazel Tree, at Ukraine on Thursday in what Putin said was a direct response to strikes on Russia by Ukrainian forces with US and British missiles. In a special statement from the Kremlin just after 8pm in Moscow that day, the Russian president said the war was escalating toward a global conflict, although he avoided any nuclear
US President-elect Donald Trump has been declaring his personnel picks for his incoming Cabinet. Many are staunchly opposed to China. South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, Trump’s nomination to be his next secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security, said that since 2000, China has had a long-term plan to destroy the US. US Representative Mike Waltz, nominated by Trump to be national security adviser, has stated that the US is engaged in a cold war with China, and has criticized Canada as being weak on Beijing. Even more vocal and unequivocal than these two Cabinet picks is Trump’s nomination for
This month, the National Health Insurance (NHI) is to implement a major policy change by eliminating the suspension-and-resumption mechanism for Taiwanese residing abroad. With more than 210,000 Taiwanese living overseas — many with greater financial means than those in Taiwan — this reform, catalyzed by a 2022 Constitutional Court ruling, underscores the importance of fairness, sustainability and shared responsibility in one of the world’s most admired public healthcare systems. Beyond legal obligations, expatriates have a compelling moral duty to contribute, recognizing their stake in a system that embodies the principle of health as a human right. The ruling declared the prior
RSS