On June 9 the results of another opinion poll were released, which contained a number of rather interesting figures. One of these was that more than six out of every 10 respondents thought that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), as chairman of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), would not be able to stamp out corruption within his own party. A similar percentage also expressed doubts that he would root out corruption among government officials or state-owned enterprises, as he recently announced he intends to do.
The poll found that because of this skepticism, 57.5 percent of respondents believe Ma should concentrate on governing the country and relinquish the party chairmanship, with only just under 27 percent agreeing that he should continue holding both posts.
That an opinion poll could show these results a week after the government and the KMT swore they would investigate incidences of corruption shows two things: The KMT is regarded by many as a lost cause and trust in the president has collapsed.
In Taiwan’s first democratic transition of power in 2000, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) won the presidential election on promises of an anti-corruption drive. Eight years later, it had not delivered on that promise.
In 2008, the KMT took the relay baton. Hardly four years had passed when a senior member of the party, a man close to Ma himself, former Executive Yuan secretary-general Lin Yi-shih (林益世), became embroiled in a major corruption scandal.
Lin has been accused of employing gangster-style intimidation tactics to extort money, in a way that goes far beyond the average passive acceptance of bribes, and the public is incensed.
So much for the Ma administration’s pretensions to being clean. Could it be that the chickens are finally coming home to roost?
It is essential that political leaders maintain the public’s trust. If they lose that, their political careers are in serious jeopardy. If a national leader’s power is terminally weakened, the country suffers. What, then, of the 23 million people living in this country?
A clear majority of respondents in the aforementioned poll oppose Ma holding both of his current positions, showing that there is already an overriding consensus among the public that Ma cannot steer the country on his own, and that he should delegate some of his power, allowing someone else to assume the KMT chairmanship.
However, merely curtailing Ma’s power within the party does not go far enough, for it will only prevent him from controlling KMT legislators in his capacity as chairman, and from effectively deciding which major laws are passed.
Even more important is how executive power is to be restored to its proper form, so that the system can operate as originally intended, instead of being controlled by one man from above.
If the government is hobbled, how can the state provide citizens with a future or hope?
In the past, Taiwanese presidents would seek consensus before deciding any contentious major national policies. From what has been observed in the machinations of the Presidential Office over the past few months, it is quite clear that Ma has no intention of going this route.
The only way ahead now is for political, economic, social and other leaders to come forward and make themselves heard, to unite and bring about the possibility of entering into dialogue with Ma. This will require more than just one individual taking action — it will take a group of such people who are able to use their collective wisdom, ability and influence to propose reforms and impress upon Ma that he should — or rather, must — carry them out.
No longer should he be allowed to encircle himself with a small clique of politicians who devise spurious, rash policies which Ma feels being president gives him the mandate to force upon the public, irrespective of what they want. In other words, Taiwan needs a model of leadership that comes from consensus within the wider social collective, rather than one in which Ma tells the public he has already decided what is going to happen.
Over the next four years, Ma can be expected to be seen desperately clinging to power, continuing to entrench himself within his walled fortress as his perceived enemies lay siege. Meanwhile, those Taiwanese who are aware of the situation will have to figure out what to do about the huge obstacle lying in the way of the opportunities and potential of progress that the entire nation seeks to attain.
If there is no way to remove this obstacle, people are going to have to find a way around it, at least as a temporary measure, because they cannot just stop moving forward. It is also incumbent upon the leaders of Taiwanese society to unite and speak with one voice, to prevent the government from foisting the ideas of the few onto the many.
Over the past few months there have been voices of dissent from various quarters of society. The time is ripe to bring these ideas together and create sufficient pressure to get the government to change its ways. If the people succeed in doing this, future generations will be reading about it in the history books.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under