Just 11 days into his second term, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is facing a new crisis as doubts and questions about the legitimacy of his administration and his credibility in fulfilling his campaign promises intensify.
On Monday, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislative caucus rebelled against the Cabinet’s securities capital gains tax bill, a key measure of the president’s promise to promote social justice. This was followed by Minister of Finance Christina Liu (劉憶如) resigning after a little more than three months in office, because of disagreements with the KMT caucus’ version of the proposed tax. Liu said the party’s version did not meet the government’s ability-to-pay principle and would not force many of the nation’s top earners who derive a large portion of their income from securities investments to pay more tax.
Liu’s abrupt move showed her determination to take responsibility for the government’s earlier promise to introduce the nation’s first securities capital gains tax in more than two decades, as the twin problems of a widening wealth gap and increasing government debt get worse. Although Liu’s resignation is her own business, as the public has seen numerous officials come and go over the years, the social and political implications that her action would bring to Ma and the KMT administration over the next four years is worth scrutinizing.
First, Liu’s resignation opens a new chapter in the crisis facing the Ma administration as the president struggles to recover from record-low approval ratings. The controversial tax proposal that has sparked strong opposition from the business sector and legislators across party lines since late March, culminating in Liu’s resignation, highlights the Ma administration’s long-standing weaknesses in decisionmaking and crisis management.
It also suggests poor communication between the Presidential Office, the Cabinet and KMT lawmakers, which may develop into a crisis of confidence or mistrust between the administration and party lawmakers. This will only heighten doubts about Ma’s leadership if the problems are not fixed in time.
Second, disagreements over the tax issue also seem to exist within the Executive Yuan, with most other ministers attempting to keep a distance from the Ministry of Finance’s tax plan and Liu becoming increasingly isolated. This will make it even more difficult to convince lawmakers and the public on the urgency of the government’s tax reform efforts.
The fact is the nation’s long-term development would inevitably be affected by the widening gap in income between rich and poor. If the finance ministry needs to take harsh measures to narrow the wealth gap, it would need the support of other government agencies to tackle the problem. As such, if the administrative team continues to fall to pieces, Liu’s resignation will not be an individual case and the only question is who will be the next to bow out.
Third, the KMT caucus’ version of the tax bill might have the least impact on the capital markets, including the stock market, but it is too watered down to achieve real tax reform compared with other proposals tabled by the Executive Yuan and opposition parties.
If the government aims to push through the KMT caucus’ proposal in the legislature, people who demand fairer taxation and equitable wealth distribution will be very disappointed. It will invite speculation about the government compromising with vested interests and cast doubt on policymakers’ other proposed reform measures, including a capital gains tax on housing and land investments.
Ma and his administration have hurt public confidence with their roughshod introduction of the tax plan and mishandling of the disputes over the past two months. However, if they cannot offer a better alternative than the blunt, poorly designed tax bill proposed by the KMT caucus, they will lose all their credibility and legitimacy.
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS