The new Cabinet lineup was announced yesterday and as expected, unfortunately, it looks pretty much like the old one. The list of appointees make it clear just what an empty gesture the resignation of Premier Jiang Yi-huah and his 81-member Cabinet was on Monday.
It also shows what a joke it was for Jiang to say that “any major or controversial policies should be left for the new Cabinet” to deal with because the nine-in-one elections last Saturday had shown that “many people are not satisfied with the direction of the government.”
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) obviously did not get the memo, as he demonstrated in his remarks to the KMT Central Standing Committee meeting on Wednesday, insisting that the overall direction of the country and the “direction of liberalization” were correct.
Premier-designate Mao Chi-kuo (毛治國) also appears not to have heard the message. Given that Mao is close to Ma, he was never likely to differ much in either the policy goals or style set by Ma and Jiang, but it is sad to see just how clearly his roster of players reflects that.
The choice of Minister Without Portfolio John Deng (鄧振中) to replace Minister of Economic Affairs Woody Duh (杜紫軍) — who will become minister without portfolio — is hardly inspiring to those clamoring for more economic reforms and economic policies that are not primarily based on ever-closer ties with China.
Minister of Science and Technology Simon Chang (張善政) will fill the new vice premier slot left vacant by Mao’s promotion, while Coast Guard Administration Deputy Secretary-General Wang Chung-yi (王崇儀) will now head the agency.
Minister of Transportation and Communications Yeh Kuang-shih (葉匡時) and Minister of Justice Luo Ying-shay (羅瑩雪) kept their seats, despite being lightning rods for protesters’ discontent since joining the Cabinet.
In the end, only two Cabinet members have left — if you do not count Jiang — Minister of Culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) and Coast Guard Administration Minister Wang Ginn-wang (王進旺). Otherwise it was just a shuffling of some of the portfolios.
Ma has made a career out of promising reforms. As minister of justice, Taipei mayor, KMT chairman and president, and yet has consistently failed to deliver on those promises. He likes to talk about reform, but he does not like to implement it.
Mao on Monday will become Ma’s fifth premier, following in the footsteps of Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄), Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), Sean Chen and Jiang. The one thing these men all had in common, besides being KMT members, is that they basically followed Ma’s lead. They may have headed the central government, but it has always been Ma’s administration.
Which brings up the old debates about revising the Constitution to change the government from the quasi-presidential system we have now to a parliamentary system and to move toward a legislative election process that would ensure more proportionate representation.
Proponents of such changes should, in the coming months, seek to capitalize on the desire for reform evidenced by voter turnout and ballot choices last Saturday — they might never have a better chance. Our government’s leaders have shown that they are too set in their ways to change. Reforms will have to come from the bottom up, or else there will be a lot more empty gestures to come.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS