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.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS