After yesterday's photo opportunity for the newly completed Cabinet, we are finally able to see quite literally what the new team looks like.
It differs from all previous ones in many significant respects, which could have an impact on the tone of policy. In the first place, although President-elect Chen Shui-bian (
Most significantly, this is the first time that the members are so widely distributed in party affiliation. Although the DPP holds the largest share, as would be expected, there are many KMT members, including, of course, Premier-designate Tang Fei (
Many KMT members have criticized the new team on exactly this point. They argue that, unless there is a genuine coalition government (in which, not incidentally, the KMT's legislative majority would entitle it to primary control), it is not appropriate for their members to participate in what is, after all, a Cabinet still largely directed by Chen. But this seems to be a case of sour grapes, part of the teething pains of the KMT's adjustment to life in opposition. From a broader point of view, Chen's consensus-building effort is to be commended, considering the delicacy of this first-ever transfer of power. Furthermore, if anything, it should be a part affirmation for the KMT that some of its members are not only very competent, but trusted to put the national interest ahead of the party's. Given the KMT's history of confusing this issue, this fact speaks volumes about the distance the party has travelled.
But criticism from the opposition parties is to be welcomed. The new environment demands that the legislators, and especially the opposition party caucuses, put forward focused criticism of government policies, and eventually articulate clear alternative platforms. Their success or failure in next year's legislative elections will depend primarily on this.
For the government, the biggest challenge will be whether all these people from such different backgrounds will be able to work together effectively. For this is also the first time in Taiwan's history that the Cabinet will act as the highest executive decision-making body in the country. The members of all previous governments were in fact selected by the Central Standing Committee (CSC) of the KMT and the coordination of the KMT acted as a "glue" holding them together. For example, serious conflicts between ministries could be -- and were -- referred to the CSC to resolve. The CSC also pulled ministers out of confrontations not only with the KMT-dominated legislature, but also with major business interests (the case of the resolution of the cable licensing war being a notable example).
The new government will have none of this backup. It will have to settle its own disputes -- and this is likely to be the major task for Tang, and perhaps Chen himself -- and it will have to develop the will and the capacity to deal with the legislature and other outside forces. And the media can certainly be counted on to pounce on and magnify every hint of discord. It may be a rough ride, but Taiwan's political system should emerge healthier from the process.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past