The approval ratings for Premier Liu Chao-hsiuan’s (劉兆玄) Cabinet have dropped steadily since it took office. There are many reasons for this.
Liu has said the constant stream of criticism from the media and commentators is partly to blame. He takes particular offense at critical remarks made by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators and commentators who usually favor the party, complaining that their lack of support for Cabinet policies is undermining public confidence in the government. He has even suggested that the KMT use party discipline to restrict what its lawmakers say in public. Meanwhile, the Government Information Office has reportedly told state-owned Radio Taiwan International not to criticize China too harshly.
The Cabinet’s moves indicate that Liu and his ministers don’t really understand the workings of democratic politics.
Under the constitutional system, the executive branch and legislative branch are meant to balance each other. Lawmakers represent the public and are responsible only to voters, so they are entitled to monitor the government’s performance. Liu’s attempt to restrict their freedom of speech is a violation of this basic democratic principle.
The media is duty bound to take a critical approach to politics. When the media sing the praises of the government and cover up for it, this is a sign of deep corruption. Under former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), the “pro-green” media — those that supported Chen and the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) — made every effort to conceal or deny Chen’s misconduct, thus accelerating the spread of corruption and ultimately leading to the DPP’s electoral defeat.
This kind of behavior has earned the revulsion of the public, and rightly so. Why, then, do former opposition figures reverse their attitude as soon as they find themselves in government, refusing to endure media criticism and even seeking to interfere in the media?
Under the DPP’s eight-year rule, the “pro-unification” (pro-KMT) media were sharply critical of the government. Many DPP supporters saw this as a case of ideology dominating political comment. In the months since the KMT regained power, viewers and readers have been curious to see if the “pro-unification” media would continue to monitor the government, or whether they would change their tune, proving that they only “monitored” the DPP government for political reasons.
As it turns out, with some notable exceptions such as talk show host Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), most “pro-unification” commentators have acted professionally over the past few months, being just as critical of the KMT government as their “pro-green” counterparts. More commentators are taking to heart their independent role as media workers.
The Taiwanese media is really a world wonder. With so many TV channels and live talk shows, any event may be scrutinized by a dozen talk shows that same day, followed by public criticism in newspaper editorials and readers’ letters the next day.
Such a weight of public opinion can indeed bring enormous pressure to bear on the government, but such is the nature of democracy. If the government can’t take the pressure, how will it shape up when the going really gets tough?
Liu’s Cabinet is a group of aged, even outdated figures. It is made up of technocrats left over from the last century who have never undergone the test of democratic politics. Unaccustomed to the democratic process, they shy away from cameras and journalists. Rarely do they ever take the initiative to hold press conferences to defend their policies.
How can the public have any confidence in such a government?
A policy can only be accepted by all sides after it has been formed through a certain political process, so a leader in the democratic era must be able to shuttle freely between “policy” and “politics.” Without either one of them, no accomplishment can be made.
Technocrats see policy as an internal decision of their elite group. This was acceptable and even efficient under authoritarian rule, but in the democratic era it is no longer so convenient. Officials have to throw policies into the public domain for comprehensive examination, so that policy and politics can interact effectively.
Officials should treat opinions expressed in the media with due humility. In the case of useful suggestions, they should accept them and adjust their policies accordingly. As to the not so useful ones, they should take the initiative to clarify the issue in public and show their appreciation anyway.
Democracy is an inconvenient truth. In the process of forming and implementing policies, the government should have a long-term vision on the one hand, and communicate with the public on the other. It should adjust policy direction and content whenever necessary, so as to make them even better. In this way, the government can really be at the service of the people. Such a transformation may be inconvenient, but it is a process that must be endured.
Above all, democracy is an ability that has to be learned. It is a skill that people can only acquire through their own experience of the democratic process, so we must give the public the chance to gain that experience.
It may be a little bit chaotic at the beginning, but the public will gradually gain the skills needed in a democracy. Then, and only then, will the quality of Taiwan’s democracy improve.
Lii Ding-tzann is a professor at the Institute of Sociology of National Tsing Hua 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