After the corruption scandal involving former Executive Yuan secretary-general Lin Yi-shih (林益世) surfaced, there has been widespread criticism of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) for his lack of judgement in choosing officials. Apart from expressing deep regret, Ma also said that he would learn from this lesson and would be “more careful” when choosing officials in the future. However, not only must government officials be chosen from a broader source to avoid complaints of favoritism, government efficiency and future election strategies must also be taken into consideration. Even if Ma is more careful, it will probably be difficult to keep similar scandals from happening again.
In addition to Ma having taken notice of Lin’s performance, it is a well known fact that another reason Lin was gifted such a high position after failing to win a legislative seat was that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) wanted him in a senior Cabinet post in the hope that he would be able to help the party regain the Greater Kaohsiung mayoralty.
Maybe the expectation of further elections made Lin, holding the third-highest position in the Cabinet, worry about campaign funding, and this lead to his alleged misdeeds. Someone unable to maintain their moral integrity has only themselves to blame, but the responsibility for this outcome also lies squarely at the feet of the governing party, which uses official positions as part of its re-election strategies.
Elections are a key component of a democratic system and since the allocation of national resources must be managed by bureaucrats and political appointees, the ability to stop them from using that power to manipulate elections determines the quality of a democracy. A look at successful democracies shows that a thin red line exists in an attempt to separate those in charge of election or party duties from administrative officials on the other.
US democracy is notorious for its spoils sharing system, but the US constitution prohibits members of Congress from taking on administrative office, which is also better paid. In addition, Congress takes part in the government’s decision-making and members of Congress have a high percentage of re-election. These factors mean that politicians with established campaign experience seldom choose to enter the administrative system. Among the few that do, hardly any choose to once again take part in local elections. This separation ensures that the administrative system gradually develops a system for appraising government performance and enforcing administrative neutrality to diminish spoil sharing.
The UK Cabinet system merges administrative and legislative affairs, so anyone who wants to become a Cabinet minister must first be elected to parliament. It is hard to differentiate between election and administrative affairs, but after many years of democratic experience, the main political parties have devised strategies for separating party duties from administrative duties when it comes to people’s promotions. When members of parliament are first elected, they are supposed to choose a political direction based on their aspirations and personality. Those who like making friends and forming close working relationships with others normally choose to enter the party side of things and establish themselves within their party, while those fond of researching and writing laws and are good debaters normally choose to get into the administrative side of things in the hope of entering the Cabinet in the future. Once a choice has been made, there is very little contact between the two groups.
The latter choice seems to be a position full of glory and honor, but ruling political parties often change and a career in politics is a lonely and hard path to negotiate. The former choice seems to involve working primarily for other people’s advancement, but such people do not need to take responsibility for policy making and they get to lead exciting lives, so both sides manage to attract willing candidates.
Before the 1990s, the same division between electoral and administrative duties existed in Taiwan. Because there were not full elections, most campaign experts were concentrated in the Taiwan Provincial Assembly. To satisfy local operations, a large part of construction expenditures were delegated to the provincial governments. This turned local provincial councilors nationwide into faction leaders and legitimated the KMT’s rule. Having separated local election pressures, the central government could promote experts and focus on policy issues. Anyone elected to the legislature in a by-election either respected the party line or was a high official who had changed tracks. This made it difficult for them to affect policy and lowered the risk of policy manipulation. From a democratic perspective this approach had some negative aspects, but it also helped maintain policy quality.
The scrapping of Taiwan Province and the introduction of full legislative elections eliminated this firewall. Unfortunately, a system for separating the promotion of people into party or administrative affairs has failed to develop. Due to intensified party competition, leaders from both main political parties have tried to consolidate their hold on power by using the administrative system as a platform for cultivating future election candidates. One wonders if the worrying rise of local faction leaders to the halls of national government is something Ma can solve simply by being “more careful.”
Yang Tai-shuenn is professor and chairperson of the Department of Political Science at Chinese Culture University.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with