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
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