Anyone who put their faith in a new Cabinet offering prospects of improved governance may have their hopes dashed in view of what took place at a Cabinet meeting over the weekend.
The informal gathering of Cabinet members on Sunday, called by Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺), came after the recent, sweeping shake-up that saw six Cabinet members replaced.
Amid the public’s anxiety about the future and the nation’s well-being, a meeting of this sort certainly provided a great opportunity for the new Cabinet to thrash out ideas, outline visions and deliberate issues of concern to the nation. It also provided a perfect setting for each Cabinet member to present policy agendas and formulate solutions to issues from their respective agencies and therefore, at the very minimum, worked to restore public confidence in the government.
However, what took place at the meeting was extremely out of step with public expectations.
Other than the usual rhetoric urging Cabinet members to be brave while defending government policies and seeking public support for their policies, the main item summing up the gathering was a 25-point declaration issued by Jiang listing the disciplines by which all Cabinet members ought to abide.
Notable among these points was one the media has dubbed the “big-mouth clause,” which called for Cabinet members to exercise self-restraint in speaking publicly about government plans before a policy has been set in stone and about policies that fall outside their domains. Other highlights included urging Cabinet members to be “polite” while interacting with lawmakers and asking members to return lawmakers’ telephone calls within 24 hours.
Some observers may be quick to come to the premier’s defense, arguing that the 25-point outline is important, as it helps to ensure a unified front among Cabinet members when policies are presented.
However, one cannot help wondering whether the premier has anything more important to address other than lecturing Cabinet officials about what is perceived by many as “Politics 101”?
It did not go unobserved how Jiang seemingly spared no effort to flatter President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) by instructing Cabinet members to revisit and get familiar with his 2008 campaign white paper and so-called “golden decade” national development plan.
If — as the Executive Yuan’s very own Research, Development and Evaluation Commission claimed earlier this year — Ma has executed 97 percent of his campaign promises, what was Jiang’s point in demanding that officials read the whole white paper again, other than to fawn upon his supervisor?
The nation faces serious issues ranging from economic challenges — such as the quickly deteriorating labor market, record-high public debt, the still growing gap between rich and poor and overdependence on China — to concerns such as nuclear safety, food safety and social justice, to name just a few.
It is hoped that government officials on the taxpayer payroll would be reminded of their duty — which is to serve the nation — rather than occupy themselves with a fawning culture that delivers only empty promises.
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