The DPP's party affairs reform group recently agreed that Tai-wan's head of state should assume the party chairmanship when the party is in power and that the chairman must be directly elected by the membership otherwise. If this proposal is approved at the DPP's national meeting, it impact the party's development and its relations with the Cabinet will be profound.
Party reforms have long been a controversial issue within the DPP. The party's leaders are aware that the idea of having the head of state simultaneously lead the party is not a panacea for party reforms. The move could give rise to abuse and manipulation. For instance, the president's actions and words could then be restrained by the Central Standing Committee -- a result that would limit the his freedom of policy-making. The president would also have to shoulder the party's imperfections.
Will the Cabinet turn out to be led by the party, an improper practice from the KMT era? Will important government policies have to be reviewed by the Central Standing Committee? Will the public criticize President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) for breaking his campaign promise if he takes over as the chairman? Will the party be criticized for backtracking on policy, considering that it demanded that Lee Teng-hui (
Moreover, be it in power or in opposition, the DPP has always lacked the power to constrain its legislative caucus. Now, due to the difficulty of fielding chairman candidates -- and the DPP's dysfunctional relations with the Cabinet -- it is advocating further integration between the party and the government -- turning itself into an "internally-created party." This will lead to the unification of the central party leadership and the legislative caucus. The DPP even intends to have Chen lead the party and stand in the forefront to face violent attacks from opposition parties. Serious thought should be given to the pros and cons of the proposal.
The DPP's factional politics are not appropriate for political integration and the policy-making of a ruling party. The failure to prepare for the task of governing the country when the DPP moved from an opposition party into a ruling one, has resulted in the government drifting away from its party headquarters.
In particular, when the posts of the DPP's chairman and Central Standing Committee members are mostly taken by lawmakers or local political leaders, such a situation will surely impede the functioning of the government. In addition, the nine-person task force of high-ranking DPP members from the Presidential Office and the Cabinet has yet to create a blueprint for the crucial process of political integration. Therefore, the crux of the matter lies in how to incorporate the party's policy-making mechanism in important government agencies. Whether the president should simultaneously lead the party is the crucial question.
To make long-term preparations for the DPP's governance, the structure of an "internally created party" must be built up, so that the president leads the party and the Cabinet appoints ministers and heads of other government agencies to serve as Central Standing Committee members. This is an inevitable stage in the DPP's transformation, as well as a necessary means to integrate policy-making systems and political maneuvering between the party and the Cabinet. Chen must lead the DPP to make the significant structural adjustments.
To make the president the chairman of the party might be an ill-advised plan for Chen, but it is the best way out for the DPP's future. This might not have a positive effect on Chen's re-election bid, but it will have a positive influence on the DPP and the nation's development.
Chen Sung-shan is a member of the Civil Service Protection and Training Commission of the Examination Yuan.
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