After returning from his overseas tour, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has immediately gotten down to working on the economy. Chen certainly deserves praise for his verve, but, during a recent meeting with a group of financial institution heads, Chen said he had previously focused on cross-strait relations, national defense and foreign relations. Given the deteriorating domestic economy, however, he would have to "come forward and grapple with Taiwan's economic and domestic problems," he said with a sense of mission reminiscent of Chou Wen-wang (周文王), the founder of the Chou dynasty. But does our president really have such sweeping power under Taiwan's constitution?
The spirit of constitutionalism and classical liberalism lies in the concept that power, as well as restraints on power, should come from the Constitution, instead of anyone's free interpretation or sense of mission, otherwise, the possibility of politicians expanding or even abusing their powers arises. Our president and premier appeared at the same public event, and suddenly decided to "come forward and tackle economic and domestic problems." The possible damage this can do to our constitutional operations should not be overlooked.
Also, from the viewpoint of political accountability, shouldn't Chen be supervised by the legislature as he makes related major decisions? Shouldn't the premier continue to "answer" to the Legislative Yuan? Also, does the sense of urgency he demonstrated amount to admitting that there had indeed been lapses in government agencies' handling of economic problems? Otherwise, why would he need to "come out and resolve them?" But the problem is: who should take responsibility for past policy mistakes? Or, is this just another so-called "price of democracy"?
Everyone is concerned about the economy. But to resolve Taiwan's economic problems, we cannot rely on the shifting posturing of the decision-makers. Unfortunately, Taiwan's constitutional system, weak as it is, may become an accidental sacrifice to "work on the economy" and politically correct thinking.
Wang Yeh-lih is a professor of political science at National Tunghai University.
Translated by Francis Huang
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing