When King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) last month became Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) secretary-general, he spoke of “making the KMT a better party so that it will allow the public to embrace it.” President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), meanwhile, who doubles as KMT chairman, said King would be the party’s “chief executive officer” in charge of implementing his agenda for party reform.
Just one month into the job, however, it has become clear that King’s clout extends beyond the KMT’s internal affairs. The KMT secretary-general has palpable influence over the executive and legislative arms of government.
Hours after King placed a call to Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) Minister Stephen Shen (沈世宏) on Thursday to express concern over the EPA’s plan to fine people who smoke while walking or riding on scooters, the EPA said it was rethinking the proposal.
Then, the Executive Yuan yielded to King’s KMT-proposed version of an amendment to the Local Government Act (地方制度法) even after legislators across party lines reached an initial consensus supporting the Executive Yuan’s version.
With the government still licking its wounds from the US beef fiasco, which pounded public confidence in Ma’s team, King’s actions are not helping re-establish the president’s image and authority.
King dismissed critics who said he was meddling with EPA policy, arguing that he simply conveyed public opinion to the government. “The party and government agencies should work together to address public complaints,” he said.
While few would disagree that politicians and government agencies have a responsibility to listen to public opinion, there are proper steps to convey public concerns that don’t undermine the Executive Yuan’s authority.
But this isn’t just about King. Shen’s backpedaling was unacceptable. Instead, he should have consulted Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) and waited for his directive after taking up the matter at the weekly Cabinet meeting.
Wu, meanwhile, who had been sidestepped, then turned around and supported King, perhaps out of a feeling of obligation, saying that what King did was “normal.”
King’s action sets a bad precedent by showing disregard for the chain of command. The next time the executive branch is mulling a policy or drafting a bill, the ministers will look not only to the premier but also to King for a final nod.
The problem with meddling of this kind is that as a party official rather than a government official, King is not accountable to the public. He is not obligated to report to the legislature, nor is he subject to scrutiny by government agencies.
Some may wonder why King has such clout. The answer lies in his full endorsement by the president, which has sent a signal to the government and party alike.
If Ma has such confidence in King and wants him to have considerable and direct influence on government policy, he should make him premier. In this scenario, King would be subject to legislative scrutiny — and public assessment of his competence.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS