After losing four consecutive local elections, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) morale is low and the whole party is seemingly in limbo. While there is much talk about continuing party reform, no substantive proposals have been introduced.
KMT Secretary-General King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) is working hard, but his proposed reforms are basically manipulations of election campaign strategy. They will not improve government performance and are unlikely to stop the KMT’s public approval levels from dropping even further.
After almost two years in office, why is the government losing support now? The first premier appointed by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄), adopted a very different style of governance compared with incumbent Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義). Liu paid almost no attention to public opinion, while Wu gives it too much. These two styles of leadership reflect two different sides of the KMT and it is the contradictions they represent that cause the administration to constantly flip-flop on public policy, which is in turn the reason for recent poor polling figures.
Liu’s leadership style can be best described as technocratic, in as much as he viewed public policy as the product of scientific or technical skills. Such leaders believe the knowledge and reasoning of “specialists” can be relied on to achieve policy goals and that as a corollary there is no need to overly focus on public opinion.
Technocrats like to do things sitting in their ivory towers and tend to have limited knowledge or understanding of what is going on in the real world. For example, last year during Typhoon Morakot, government inaction was seen as a result of officials’ failure to grasp the severity of the situation. It is very easy for this style of governance to become detached or isolated from the public leading to public complaints.
The import of US beef is another clear example. Apparently the National Security Bureau formulated all its plans behind closed doors and as a result the Department of Health, the legislature and even the bureau’s advisers failed to speak with one voice on the subject. Some of the experts taking part in policy planning may have reflected on the reaction of China and the US, but they failed to fully consider the response of the public.
Any plans drafted in this manner are too far removed from the public, which makes them difficult to implement and can even lead to political conflict. In addition, because many government experts were born to powerful and privileged families, they have a tendency to devise plans that fail to take into account the public sentiment.
Wu represents the second type of leadership style, which can be described as service-oriented. Such politicians believe politics means serving voters and pay little or no attention to public policy. Many KMT mayors and county commissioners are very skilled at serving voters. This can involve giving out money at weddings and funerals, visiting the ill and military camps, not to mention allowances for seniors, childbirth subsidies, school lunches and trips abroad.
Unfortunately, cities and counties where such services are emphasized pay almost no attention to public policy. Overall interests are sacrificed for individual benefits. This also greatly increases the level of government debt that is passed on to future generations.
As premier, Wu has acted like a local leader. For example, as soon as he assumed office, he called for a moratorium on all public policies that require tax increases, including the energy tax and health insurance premiums. This suggests that Wu does not care about environmental issues or that he considers these to be the responsibility of the next generation. He has also shown little interest in the national debt, as that is a policy area not fully understood by the public.
Wu especially favors former Hsinchu mayor Lin Junq-tzer (林政則), who he wanted in the government and even arranged to give the title Taiwan Provincial chairman. He also arranged for a group of retired government officials to join the board of directors at the National Theater and National Concert Hall, squeezing out Cloud Gate artistic director Lin Hwai-min (林懷民) in the process. Politics has become a way to reward people for past service, but such an approach all but guarantees its detachment from public policy.
Over the past two years, the KMT government has swung back and forth between “service” politicians and “technocrats.” Although service-oriented political hacks may be able to please voters, they have a tendency to please individuals at the expense of the larger public interest. Technocrats and their ideas often contradict public opinion, which is unacceptable in a democracy, though that is not to deny the importance of such experts.
The key point is to refrain from formulating policy behind closed doors in isolation from the real world. The optimal approach is to formulate public policy by linking individual needs with overall demand based on public opinion.
Democracy is not about leaders acting like they know what is best and ignoring public opinion, nor is it about merely winning the public over. Leaders must move forward in tandem with the public. If the KMT cannot find some way to merge these two worlds, reform will remain a distant dream.
Lii Ding-tzann is a professor of sociology at National Tsing Hua University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
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
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
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