In a recent telephone interview with the BBC, I was asked about whether the "New DPP" reform movement of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was similar to that of the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) "New KMT" movement, as both dragged their respective parties into a quagmire of internal division. I responded that it was normal for the DPP to be plagued with internal division, so this situation was different from the KMT.
Not long after this, President Chen Shui-bian (
Subsequently, with the backing of younger DPP lawmakers, a proposal for 10 major reforms proposed by the DPP legislative caucus was passed. The proposal added four more issues to the six reform priorities addressed by Chen during his Double Ten National Day speech this year. The four reforms are related to government-owned stock bonuses, payment for honorary government posts, dual monthly incomes of retired officials and legislative reform. Rumor has it that the DPP legislative caucus will establish 10 different taskforces to push forward these reforms. However, the direction of the DPP's reforms up to now has caused mixed feelings. The positive side is that we see that the DPP still has the motivation and impetus to carry out reform. The negative side is the public's suspicions about whether there is any meaning to these reforms and what benefits they will bring to the public.
The four additional reforms do not seem to be difficult to accomplish. For example, cutting the salary of national policy advisers and consultants to the president seems to be supported by lawmakers of both the ruling and opposition parties. Also, the goals of prohibiting retired officials from receiving a double income and establishing a system of providing government-owned stock bonuses in order to eradicate any illegal acquisition of money should not be difficult. Although these three draft reforms are considered as plausible and concrete in terms of social justice and administrative ethics, they are still not regarded as being fundamental structural reforms. As a result, problems remain and they cannot be solved by simply cutting paychecks.
It was very inappropriate for Chen to give only one media outlet his interview. What's worse is that in his capacity as president, Chen seemed grouchy and pushy throughout the interview and defended himself against accusations that he always rewards his henchmen by giving them government patronage. Chen even believes that there is nothing wrong with employing people such as former vice presidents as presidential advisers. However, the crux lies in how Chen structures his personnel. When Chen spoke of former vice presidents, he was probably referring to former vice president Lee Yuan-zu (
Even if Chen has quite a few national policy advisers and presidential advisers, it is unlikely that these people will be able to provide any advice. The recent resignation tendered by national policy adviser Huang Wen-hsiung (
Since the DPP came to power it has been in a predicament, for it is simply unable to map out national policy and implement it effectively. In terms of decision-making, Chen does not seem receptive to different ideas. Besides, there is still a lot of room for improvement in terms of important decisions made by the Executive Yuan, the DPP legislative caucus and the DPP itself. Since the Executive Yuan is in charge of mapping out government policy, it has to be responsible for all the government's failures.
The DPP legislative caucus should have had a dependable mechanism for formulating dec-isions rather than only serving as a rubber stamp for decisions made by the Presidential Office and the Executive Yuan. If a party is only hellbent on winning elections, it does not have to be responsible for government policy. However, the DPP is more than a electoral machine and the party should play a more active role in formulating national policy and should even seek to reach a consensus on policies of national importance, and check and balance those in power to bring about genuine reform.
Chiu Hei-yuan is a sociology professor at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY YA-TI LIN AND DANIEL CHENG
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