The snowballing Taiwan Development Corp (TDC) insider trading scandal forced President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) to hold a meeting with high-level government and party officials on May 31, in which he promised to delegate power to Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) in accordance with the Constitution. However, the question of whether Su can really become the country's highest administrative official as specified in the Constitution deserves further scrutiny.
The key lies in how much power Chen is willing to cede. We must pay attention to the fact that in his announcement, Chen merely stressed that he would delegate powers outside those bestowed on the president by the Constitution to government and party officials, and let conflicts be negotiated and resolved through party and government mechanisms.
This does not mean that Su will enjoy complete decision-making rights for major national security policies. Unless the National Security Council under the Presidential Office ceases operations, Su will not be the country's highest administrative official, as Chen only delegated part of his power, not all of it.
Second, even if Chen were willing to delegate all of his powers to Su, the premier and his Cabinet would be working under the constant threat of having to resign en masse because the premier must step down when the president leaves his post, or after every legislative election.
From this perspective, if the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is defeated in the year-end Taipei and Kaohsiung mayoral elections, or next year's legislative elections, it won't be just the party's chairman that will have to take political responsibility, but also the president and the premier. Therefore, even if Chen gives all his power to Su, the premier must be ready to leave at any time.
Not only that, but even if he were the country's highest administrative official as specified in the Constitution, Su would be but a minority leader without the support of the legislative majority.
To put it more bluntly, will the pan-blue-dominated legislature support Su if Chen delegates all power to him? Although we saw him shaking hands with Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) on TV the other day, that does not mean that the pan-blue camp will stop boycotting Cabinet policies. If the pan-blue camp blocks his policies, he will find it difficult to become the country's highest administrative official.
In addition, since Chen's legitimacy as president is at a new low, he would only be drawing a constitutionally based pie in the sky if he was willing to make Su the nation's highest administrative official. This means that Su would not have legitimacy as a leader because, after all, his legitimacy comes from the president, whose own legitimacy is sorely lacking.
More importantly, in addition to having independent decision-making rights, the country's highest administrative official must also enjoy the full power to form a Cabinet, according to the intention of Article 53 of the Constitution. The article clearly states: "The Executive Yuan shall be the highest administrative organ of the state." But if Su cannot or dares not form a new Cabinet immediately in order to gain control of government personnel, then he is not the highest administrative official.
To be honest, Chen's delegation of power is only partial, as he is likely to only transfer political and party powers not specified in the Constitution. He plans to let DPP Chairman Yu Shyi-kun decide party affairs alone or jointly with the party's Central Standing Committee. They will also have to take charge of the year-end mayoral elections in Taipei and Kaohsiung. This means that if the DPP truly suffers a miserable defeat, then Chen has set a "stop-loss point" for himself. He will not have to step down to take responsibility for the results, because Yu and the committee will become scapegoats. In government affairs, he still has the right to appoint or dismiss the premier and decide major national security policies. In contrast, Su, from this moment, must take responsibility for the success or failure of Taiwan's domestic and economic affairs.
Generally speaking, Su is still not the highest administrative official as specified in the Constitution. But in the wake of Chen's decision to delegate powers, Su and Yu have gained some bargaining chips for when it comes time to decide who will become the party's candidate in the 2008 presidential election. If the DPP is defeated in both Taipei and Kaohsiung at the end of this year, Su will obtain the pan-green camp's only ticket to the presidential election, and Yu will be out.
However, Su also faces some political risks: If Chen resigns, Vice President Annette Lu (
Based on the above reasoning, we must ask ourselves if Su is the nation's highest administrative official.
Chen Chao-chien is an assistant professor in the department of public affairs at Ming Chuan University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US