A military coup took place in Thailand on Sept. 19, and deposed Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra remains unwilling to return home. Thailand employs a Cabinet system, and its prime minister was a populist leader surrounded by a series of corruption allegations.
It is unfair to blame Thailand's unstable political situation on the system, since numerous countries have adopted the parliamentary system successfully. But the military coup tells us one thing: It is unrealistic to place our hopes for elimination of corruption on the adoption of a Cabinet system. That hope is as ridiculous as the claim that halving the legislature can improve legislative efficiency.
Ever since the sit-in on Ketagalan Boulevard began earlier this month, some politicians have proposed implementing a Cabinet system in exchange for President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) resignation or the termination of former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Shih Ming-teh's (施明德) protest.
But this exchange, whether the intention is good or not, is blurring the anti-corruption campaign. Why do protesters defy the rain to participate in the demonstration? Are they demonstrating against Chen or against the Constitution? If the president is guilty of committing a mistake, why is the constitutional system made a scapegoat? Fighting corruption and constitutional amendments are two different things. If there is crossover, it will blur the anti-corruption focus and confuse the public. No wonder opinion polls show that over 70 percent of the respondents disagree with any deal.
During the transformation of any young democracy, corruption occurs owing to flaws in the legal system. There is no absolute relationship between corruption and the implementation of a Cabinet, presidential or semi-presidential system. If the laws are ineffective, corruption will occur even if there is a change to a Cabinet system.
If prosecutors, investigators and the judicial system do not function independently, won't a premier or prime minister who enjoys absolute power be corrupt even if the president is not? Thus, we must apply the cure where it counts when handling corruption problems. Whether the president or premier should hold power is not the focus.
A transformation from authoritarianism to democracy that only changes the way leaders are produced will not guarantee the absence of corruption. Leaders of democratic countries are equally easily corrupted.
When someone in power is backed by millions of votes, he or she will sometimes act more arrogantly than a dictator. The sense of being an "elected emperor" makes some leaders feel that the law is for the people, not for themselves. They may even act like dictators and abuse administrative resources, interfere with the judicial system and flout the rule of law.
Therefore, during the process of democratization, the deepening of the rule of law must follow both democratic procedures and the principles of justice. Most important, those in power must be made to abide by the law and not to stand above it. If they do, the law remains the tool of the ruler even after democratization and only the powerless must obey it. That is democracy of the worst kind.
Unfortunately, the scope of democratic development in Taiwan has gradually shrunk in recent years, because we set our democratic standards at the lowest level, namely, the expansion of political participation. It seems that participation in political affairs has become the ultimate goal of our democracy. We have ignored the necessity to cultivate the public's civic autonomy and accountability, and to further strengthen the rule of law to prevent the authorities from going too far.
In a healthy civil society, it is impossible for politicians to act like wizards and arouse supporters simply by shouting slogans to attract votes and hold on to power.
The outside world had high expectations for Chen when the transfer of power occurred in 2000. Today, his approval ratings have dropped to a new low. This is related to his lack of emphasis on the rule of law and an overemphasis on political maneuvering. Since he came to power, he has repeatedly pushed the boundaries of the Constitution, insisting on building a minority government and taking advantage of legal loopholes. He has made a mockery of the Constitution and did not believe his manipulation of the law might backfire.
In the face of rapidly growing anti-president forces, Chen has suddenly started to emphasize that he was elected in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of China, and will only step down according to constitutional procedure. The DPP and government leaders have also emphasized the significance of the rule of law.
They are all correct. The problem is that they have forgotten that they are role models for the public. Abiding by the law is not just the responsibility of the public and opposition parties. National leaders should also set a good example through their words and deeds. They should not play around with the law only to demand that the public obey it when they stage a protest.
The rule of law works two ways, regardless of whether you are rich or poor, powerful or not. During Taiwan's transformation, the failure of the rule of law is reflected in the public's impression that the judiciary is unfair, since it tends to treat the rich and powerful differently.
National leaders have also failed to fulfill their promise of improving Taiwan, and have indulged themselves in bad habits left over from the authoritarian period, allowing the law to deteriorate and corruption to grow. When problems occur, they blame the previous Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime, as if they are incapable of self-reflection.
At present, many are placing their hopes on the judiciary and the prosecutorial system, the final line of defense in a democratic system. They should investigate the corruption allegations involving Chen and his family in a fair, objective and brave manner, so as to uncover the truth. They should not lean towards any side. Nor should they have a predetermined stance on whether Chen is guilty or not. This question should be decided by evidence alone, as this is the only thing that can convince the public and resolve the crisis.
Time is running out. The anti-corruption campaign is unlikely to end by itself. Public anger can hardly be resolved by constitutional amendments or ethnic mobilization. It can only be resolved by the self-awareness of those within the system who represent justice, as they stand up and clarify the matter without fear of offending any side. To save Taiwan's democracy, we still cling to a last hope, praying that the judicial system will be allowed free rein.
Kao Lang is a professor in the department of political science at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with