It is too bad that President Chen Shui-bian (
The opposition parties' initial response to the TSU proposal was less than enthusiastic. After all, seeing Chen, with the grandeur of a president, address the legislature and the entire nation (since the event would probably be televised) would make KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) very jealous.
Therefore, Lin Yi-shih (林益世), KMT legislative caucus whip, said the proposal would be meaningless if it meant the president "coming all the way" to Legislative Yuan only to utter "nonsense." Lin even suggested the president should hold a press conference instead.
Of course, the KMT was ignoring the significance of such an address. As the president is popularly elected by the people, he is accountable to the people. On the other hand, as lawmakers are elected by voters as their representatives and advocates in the government, when the president addresses the legislature, he is essentially addressing the people. That is the real significance of the address. That kind of significance is lost if the president simply holds a televised press conference.
For the opposition parties, that kind of significance brings this country too close to a presidential system of government. After all, no agreement has been reached in the debate between the pan-green and pan-blue camps over which form of government Taiwan ought to have: presidential or cohabitation.
But the opposition has begun to warm to the idea of the address as a chance to turn the tables on the president. They said they would support the idea as long as the president could be questioned after the speech. If there is anything that Taiwan's legislators are good at, it is asking questions of government officials. They have perfected the art to the point that many well-qualified individuals had allegedly turned down invitations to serve in the Cabinet because of the humiliating treatment Cabinet members typically receive from lawmakers during interpellations.
But the ROC Constitution only provides for "a report on the state of the nation by the president," and mentions nothing about lawmakers raising questions. Furthermore, under the US system, from which the framers of the ROC Constitution got the idea for a state-of-the-nation address, the president simply makes the speech in front of Congress but does not need to answer any questions.
DPP lawmakers fear Chen may be greeted with hostility at the legislature, even if he doesn't answer any questions, so they oppose the idea as well. While that fear may be legitimate, it should not keep Chen from delivering his report. Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) used to deliver a state-of-the-nation address annually to the National Assembly, despite the presence of a very hostile opposition party, the DPP.
If Chen is truly determined to change the current semi-presidential form of government to a real presidential one, he must have the courage to face hostility in the legislature. We should create a custom of the president giving state-of-the-nation addresses to bring Taiwan even closer to a presidential form of government. Chen should accept the invitation when the opportunity comes again.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers