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.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
International debate on Taiwan is obsessed with “invasion countdowns,” framing the cross-strait crisis as a matter of military timetables and political opportunity. However, the seismic political tremors surrounding Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairman Zhang Youxia (張又俠) suggested that Washington and Taipei are watching the wrong clock. Beijing is constrained not by a lack of capability, but by an acute fear of regime-threatening military failure. The reported sidelining of Zhang — a combat veteran in a largely unbloodied force and long-time loyalist of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — followed a year of purges within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
RSS