The most basic decision any modern political leader must make is whether to take an aggressive or conciliatory approach. Sometimes one must decide to press on with bold initiatives without consulting the opposition and appeal directly to the public. But sometimes incremental changes brought about using the subtle art of negotiation are needed to help bring a nation back onto the right track.
For the past five years, President Chen Shui-bian's (
Regretfully, what has caused most of the political strife during this period is the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government's lack of judgement as to when it has sufficient mandate to run up the flag and charge, or when they need to seek consensus and move things along in stages as a minority government.
Su Tseng-chang (
The main reason for the departure of former premier Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) was the failure of his Cabinet's moderate approach in seeking reconciliation with the pan-blue alliance -- especially after the latter continued to boycott all government policy.
Last month's local government elections were the straw that broke the camel's back after the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) -- under the leadership of new Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) -- outperformed the DPP in several important counties and cities.
It is therefore understandable that the president altered the strategy of reconciliation and dialogue used over the last year into a more pragmatic and Taiwan-centered stance before he reshuffled the Cabinet.
As the mood of the nation has become exhausted by all the partisan wrangling and the political decay of the DPP government, the public is now looking to its new leaders and officials to be more accountable and responsible.
Su's integrity and efficient management during his term as governors of both Pingtung and Taipei counties is the best weapon available to the DPP government in its fight to regain public trust.
Nevertheless, Su alone will not be enough to rejuvenate public confidence in the government. Forming a "combat team" with expertise in trade, economics, social welfare, national security and adequate policy coordination techniques constitute the basic challenges for Su's Cabinet.
Su's efficient organization of his team -- bringing in a lot of new faces to the Cabinet -- illustrates the government's strong determination to pursue balanced policy implementation and use "constructive aggressiveness" when dealing with the pan-blue dominated legislature.
Any skillful politician knows how to incorporate communication and persuasion into policy making without necessarily sacrificing his or her fundamental principles. It is therefore imperative for Su's Cabinet to generate momentum in its working relationship with the pan-blue-dominated legislature while at the same time taking note of the general call to put aside partisan disputes and uphold the public interest.
It is to be expected that the pan-blues, knowing full well that Su is likely to be one of the main contenders for the DPP's ticket in the 2008 presidential race, will not give him an easy ride. But since Su is the most popular political leader within the pan-green camp, the pan-blue camp's continued use of its legislative majority to sabotage everything the government proposes will ultimately backfire in the eyes of the public.
A leader in an era of reconciliation need not limit his goals, he must just lower his voice and be prepared to take smaller steps. A leader who indulges his own personality, whether angrily or in a conciliatory manner, at the expense of public expectation, is guilty of hubris. The more a leader bends his knee and lowers his voice, the more likely that leader will gain the trust of the people.
As long as the Su Cabinet is determined to take action, stay morally and politically clean, prove capable of improving government performance and reviving public confidence when it comes to policy implementation and continued reform, then the DPP will win back public support.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
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