Yesterday marked one year since President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) inauguration.
Last month, a poll by the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) Taiwan Public Opinion Foundation found that 46 percent of the public disagree with the way Tsai is running the government.
Furthermore, 53.9 percent say they are dissatisfied with Premier Lin Chuan’s (林全) Cabinet and 60 percent are dissatisfied with the DPP government’s overall performance.
Foundation chairman You Ying-lung (游盈隆) said the poll results show that the government is facing a crisis of “entrenched administrative difficulty” and that there is an urgent need for sweeping reform.
The poll was very thorough and showed that even the party’s traditional strongholds of Yunlin, Chiayi, Nantou, Pingtung and Penghu counties, as well as Tainan, registered more than 50 percent disapproval.
I am not a member of any political party, but I believe in democratic politics and I am happy to see a continuous change of political parties heading the government.
Similarly, as the DPP succeeded in winning both a legislative majority and government power, I would be happy to see the party be successful in running the nation and help it to progress.
Therefore, an analysis of the “state of the nation” must be carried out in a dispassionate way.
Prior to taking up office as president, Tsai lacked practical experience for the role. A high level of academic achievement and a sweeping victory at the ballot box gave Tsai the confidence that she was well-equipped to be president.
However, self-belief is no substitute for practical experience.
Many presidents lack experience when entering office and this does not guarantee poor performance, although an inexperienced president must have a competent team of advisers to lean on.
For reasons unknown, Tsai seems uninterested in assembling a broad and talented team of advisers which would bring stability to government.
I previously posed this question to key members of the Tsai administration: Who are the one or two people close to the president who are able to say “this is wrong, we should be doing it like this instead.”
I was told there is no one.
Under the Constitution, the premier is the nation’s most senior executive leader.
One way to deal with an inexperienced president would be to place the responsibility of governance on the premier, but Lin also lacks sufficient practical experience.
With about a dozen ministries under the Executive Yuan, it is essential that the premier is firm but fair, focuses on the essentials and assumes and maintains an overall view.
However, from the way that different ministries and agencies are constantly stepping on each others’ toes, it is clear that Lin has allowed himself to become bogged down in the details of government and is unable to see the big picture.
The number of truly talented Cabinet members can be counted on one hand.
Imagine for a moment that the public deducts half a percentage point for every mistake that the Cabinet makes: The government’s approval rating would fall by five points after committing 10 blunders and 10 percentage points after having made 20 errors.
Looked at from this perspective, is it any wonder that the polling data indicates that the public is losing trust in the Tsai administration?
The way the public assesses the competency of the government is not limited to the administrative performance of the central government.
The public lumps central government performance together with local-level pan-green camp leaders and the approximately 60 DPP legislators who have varying degrees of experience and competence.
The majority of DPP legislators are adept speakers and extremely driven.
Riding high after gaining control of the Legislative Yuan, DPP legislators talk lucidly on well-thought-out policies and employ similarly artful wordplay to enthusiastically defend bad policies.
Seeking to steal the limelight and harboring hopes of winning a second term in office, DPP legislators are running amok under the illusion that they possess a divine unassailable mandate.
However, it should be remembered that only one in 20 Taiwanese belong to a political party.
The public does not live and breathe politics, and therefore does not judge right and wrong or think purely in terms of different political parties and their interests.
For this reason, for the vast majority of the public, their ideas do not align with the goals of DPP politicians.
This has resulted in the DPP falling further in the satisfaction ratings.
Whether in the Cabinet or the legislative caucus, it seems the word “stability” does not feature in their vocabularies.
For example, on the issue of same-sex marriage, Taiwan is an Asian nation with a society rooted in Confucian values.
Most Taiwanese understand and respect homosexuality, but the vast majority of people do not want same-sex marriage to be enshrined into law and if the government attempts to force the issue, the public will dock another half percentage point from the Tsai administration’s approval rating.
Another example is the five-day workweek — or “one fixed day off and one flexible rest day” — amendments to the Labor Standards Act (勞動基準法).
The original idea was not a bad one, but unfortunately, the policy was not properly thought through, resulting in the entire process descending into chaos.
The party should have had the courage to apologize, halt the process and clearly state that it would carry out a full review. This would have given the DPP an opportunity to come out of the crisis relatively unscathed.
However, the word “apology” appears not to feature within the DPP’s vocabulary.
The debacle has cost the DPP another half percentage point.
Then there is the government’s Forward-looking Infrastructure Development Program which would cost NT$882.49 billion (US$29.21 billion) over eight years.
The legislature has yet to approve the bill, while the media have already picked apart the policy and the public has duly knocked off another half percentage point.
The structure of the nation’s population is undergoing rapid change and a widening disparity between rural and urban standards of living is inevitable, yet the government has failed to clearly explain the benefits of spending large sums of money in depressed areas to taxpayers.
The public has also taken note of the ongoing exchange between local politicians in “green” cities and townships — who are competing with each other to get a piece of the pie — and has deducted another percentage point.
All Tainan and Kaohsiung legislators are DPP members. They are falling over one another to be voted mayor before the electoral process has even begun, exhibiting shameful behavior.
The public has taken note.
One final example is transitional justice. It is difficult when talking about this subject to not reflect on Taiwanese who have decided, one after another, to decapitate statues of which they disapprove.
The transitional justice handed down to the China Youth Corps and the National Women’s League requires that they be restructured by outsiders and turned into organizations for the entire public rather than settling scores and disbanding them.
The nation is made up of a diverse range of ethnic groups, each with their own history and emotions. If someone behaves in a unilateral manner, ignoring the views of anyone except their own, that person will be punished by voters.
How much more political capital can the DPP afford to lose?
I am forced to omit any criticism of the irrational and obstructive behavior that the government has had to deal with during its first year in office.
Whilst I am aware that this might be uncomfortable reading for many members of the DPP, I felt compelled to write, since the overall health of the nation is far more important.
Since the legislative term for both the president and legislators is only four years and the period is already one-quarter of the way through, time is of the essence.
If the DPP can summon the courage to adjust its ways, then its best days might still lie ahead, but how should the party change?
To broaden the depth of talent within the government, if the party were to draw upon the institutions and offices of state to balance the power wielded by internal party factions, this would be sufficient to solve many of the government’s difficulties.
Above all, the party must learn to think before it acts and must also understand that change does not come easily.
In the future, if the government makes mistakes, it must have the courage to apologize — and it must be a sincere apology.
If the Tsai administration changes its ways and makes a fresh start, it would receive rich praise from the public.
The DPP must understand that a transition of political power in a democracy does not mean all-encompassing dynastic upheaval; it is about taking over and continuing the responsibilities of the previous government.
This is not to say that transitional justice should not go ahead — it should, but the government must strike a balance and refrain from causing unnecessary disruption and becoming bogged down in a political quagmire.
Most importantly, the DPP must recognize that if the public feels that at the end of four years they are not significantly better off, both financially and in general terms, they would not hesitate to punish Tsai and her party at the ballot box.
Frank Wu is a former member of the Control Yuan.
Translated by Edward Jones
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