As Typhoon Fung-wong closed in on the country early last week, “homebody” (zhainan, 宅男) President Ma Ying-jeou suddenly took on the position of a commanding officer on the front line, with even the Central Weather Bureau coming under his scrutiny.
Critics had earlier lashed out at Ma when he stood on the sidelines as Tropical Storm Kalmaegi battered the country. His supporters, however, blamed the Constitution, saying it does not clearly delineate the authority of the president and the Cabinet. It therefore seems only a matter of time before the Constitution is amended. However, before changes are made, it would behoove us to take a look at what the Constitution has to say about the president’s role.
The powers explicitly given to the president in the Constitution are in fact very limited. Apart from appointing the premier and nominating candidates to high-level positions such as the Judicial Yuan and the Examination Yuan, virtually all decisions have to be countersigned and agreed upon by the premier or require the premier’s participation to become valid.
A majority of the public believes that the president’s highest power comes from his status as commander-in-chief and the right to determine the general direction of national security. However, looking at the constitutional text, this is not necessarily true. The president can indeed decide the overall direction of national security, but the Constitution does not specify how these decisions are to be executed.
For example, if the president wanted to use this clause to push cross-strait direct flights but was turned down by the Cabinet’s various ministries or the legislature, cross-strait direct flights would not be approved.
It is also hard to say whether the right to command a nation’s armed forces is an actual power. For example, Queen Elizabeth is formally in charge of the UK’s armed forces, but because each order must be signed off by the prime minister to become effective, her role of “commander” has become ceremonial in nature. The “co-signing” mentioned in the Constitution should also be applicable to military orders, but it has been monopolized by the president ever since the time of dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石).
However, the greatest source of presidential power in Taiwan prior to 1997 came from the linking of the ruling party with the government — a remnant of the Martial Law era, where the president was the chairman of the nation’s one and only party. After the constitutional amendment in 1997, the president’s greatest source of power came from the right to appoint and dismiss the premier without having to obtain the agreement of the legislature or ask the Cabinet to co-sign his decisions. Because the president could make decisions on appointing and dismissing the leader of the nation’s highest executive institution after 1997, the president naturally became the premier’s superior. Viewed in this light, it is correct to say that the premier is the president’s “chief executive officer.”
The president respects the Cabinet in principle, but still takes command of national policy when necessary. This is reasonable. So why then has Ma been criticized for being a zhainan president?
One reason is the tradition of viewing the president as an “emperor.” The other reason is the hope the public placed on Ma during the presidential campaign. In novels and movies, all Chinese emperors — from Qin Shihuang and Han Wudi to Kangxi and Yongzheng of the Qing Dynasty — always took full responsibility and never stood on the sidelines. During his election campaign, Ma visitied the countryside for several “long stay” visits in an attempt to get closer to the public. Afterward, Ma wrote a long, white paper detailing his experience. These do not seem like things a person standing on the sidelines does. Ma enjoyed the time spent with the public learning about their daily lives, later expressing his ideas about labor, education and economic policies.
After his landslide election it was only natural for the public to feel disappointed when he chose to retreat to the sidelines, with the excuse that he had to “respect the Cabinet’s authority.” The public views this as shirking responsibility. Many Cabinet members are also unhappy because they have to stand in front and face all the criticism but cannot take any credit for achievements.
The position of the president does not mean he has to do every single task or speak out on every occasion, as this would disrupt the work of the executive team. However, the president is also not in a position to stand idly by. A president must be resolute and clear about what he ought to do and make it clear to the Cabinet and the public.
First, the president should declare that he shall take final responsibility for the success or failure of policies implemented by the Cabinet. He must make the public believe that he made the decision and that he will be responsible for its outcome. He must also make it known that he will continue to listen to public opinion and carry out his policies as promised. This is the only way Ma can avoid being criticized as a zhainan president prone to shirking responsibility.
Second, all government policy must be in line with the president’s decisions. The Cabinet has a duty to carry out presidential orders and ensure that its actions are in line with the political views espoused by the president during the election campaign. The president must let the Cabinet know that the Constitution has vested the president with the power to appoint and dismiss the premier and to carry out his policies through the Cabinet. This is the only way Ma can deal wtih the arrogance and stubbornness of some Cabinet members.
Ma had promised reform during his election campaign, making the public believe he could offer an alternative to the ills of the Democratic Progressive Party government and the mistakes of the old Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). He must therefore ensure that the KMT does not return to its old political practices and that it moves ahead with a sense of mission and in the style he talked about during his election campaign.
Bruce Liao is an assistant professor in the Department of Law at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Drew Cameron
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS