Prior to the Lunar New Year holiday, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) could no longer control his anger. Spelling it out, he stressed that he has more than a year left in office and that there is a lot he can still do, so there is no need to talk about a caretaker government, nor is there a lame duck problem.
He even said: “I’ll fight back.”
A powerful president who rules the land alone must pay attention to statecraft. According to Chinese philosopher Han Fei (韓非), statecraft “is hidden in the bosom and useful for comparing diverse motivating factors of human conduct and in manipulating the body of officials secretly.”
In particular, when it comes to personal likes and dislikes, people should refrain from raising a ruckus.
Everyone knows that Ma is not very fond of Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), but if you do not like someone, there is no need to make a big fuss over it. However, during the “September strife” episode in 2013, Ma took the lead in calling for Wang to be kicked out of the legislature, forcing everyone to choose sides.
Ever since the nine-in-one elections in November last year, Taiwan has been engaged in a serious debate over the nation’s democratic system. From this point of view, Ma’s shortcomings in statecraft have resulted in chaos and there are a few points that need to be given some further thought.
First, the current system has adjusted the democratic system by relying on regular elections. This is a mistake, because it has a negative effect. A system of regular elections is tantamount to a guaranteed period in office, regardless of how inept, shameless or lacking in statecraft a person is. Given the high threshold for recalls and impeachment proceedings — which are both intended to stabilize the political situation — we are forced to watch the president cause harm to the country and there is nothing we can do about it.
Second, although Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) compromised and accepted a Cabinet system, he held on tightly to his power over the military. Today, the president controls not only the military, in practice he also controls the executive branch of government. The result is that Ma, despite his shortcomings in statecraft and his lame duck status, is more frightening than a lame duck US president and the small harm they might do, because Ma is unreasonable, stubborn and will not listen to anyone but himself.
As the public and his confidants are turning against him, Ma’s shame is turning into anger and he is throwing all caution to the side. The current system has no mechanism for handling the negative consequences of character flaws.
Third, for historical reasons, the public values the symbolism of a directly elected president, and it cannot be denied that every time voters have had enough of a president — who refuses to step down — the leader falls back on their status as a popularly and directly elected president, using it as a strong legitimate and legal shield, thus consolidating a systemic flaw that really should be addressed.
Fourth, former presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) were pro-independence presidents, governing the country for 20 years. Ma, on the other hand, is the first directly elected pro-unification president, and has governed the country for seven years. He is inept and lacks the required skills of statecraft. Who can possibly predict how the next directly elected pro-unification president will use the military power bestowed upon them and what kind of negative impact that might have on national sovereignty?
Finally, a powerful president cannot also be a symbol of national unity. When the domestic political situation is in turmoil, such a president will not be seen as fair and impartial, but rather as partial and biased. For this reason, and because ultimate power is concentrated in the hands of one person, the country is torn apart once every four years.
That one person comes either from the pan-blue or the pan-green camp and it will be difficult for them to be a unifying force. The question is: Will direct presidential elections reinforce this situation? That is a question worth giving further thought.
Christian Fan Jiang is deputy convener of the Northern Taiwan Society’s legal and political group.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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
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
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