President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called on the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to form a Cabinet before president-elect Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) takes office on May 20, “lest the government be left idling.”
The call might seem reasonable, but the important question is: What role would the outgoing president play in a new government formed by public opinion?
Ma reportedly telephoned Tsai on election day after her victory was confirmed to congratulate her and to bring up the issue of forming a Cabinet.
However, the DPP is not inclined to take over the executive branch four months ahead of the transfer of presidential power.
Ma said he is simply doing what he has been advocating, but the Constitution, after an amendment in 1997, states that the president’s appointment of a premier does not need the legislature’s approval, which means that it is only a convention, rather than an obligation, that the Cabinet resigns after a legislative election to make way for the new legislature.
When the idea of synchronizing presidential and legislative elections — the former used to take place in March — was discussed in 2011 ahead of the 2012 general elections and again early last year, a “longer than usual” caretaker period was mentioned, but did not constitute an objection to the Executive Yuan and the Central Election Commission’s decision to synchronize the elections.
The reasons put forward by former premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) in 2011 and commission Chairman Liu Yi-chou (劉義周) last year to fend off doubts over the “long gap” were that the government’s power to make major decisions could be suspended by convention or a power transition act that could be introduced with the legislature’s help, and that the so-called gap is not a “precise term” as “the constitutional and political order is clear, with the outgoing president being in office until the new president takes over.”
In 2012, when the KMT won both the presidency and a legislative majority, there was no gap problem in terms of the continuity of the ruling party’s policymaking, but institutionally speaking, the gap still existed.
A power transition draft bill that laid down regulations to facilitate transitions could have been passed, but it was mothballed.
The public suspects that Ma’s and the KMT’s calls for a majority-formed Cabinet might be a political ploy. The issue of the caretaker period has existed for years and was caused by a decision to synchronize elections.
The gap issue needs to be dealt with first, while a question of whether the Cabinet should be formed by the majority party — especially when the president is from the opposition — requires a constitutional overhaul.
Following Ma’s advice might result in a constitutional crisis, in which the outgoing president might — or, in this case, would certainly — not stand on the same side with the premier they appointed. Policymaking and implementation would lack legitimacy as political responsibility would not lie with a single body.
The president could establish a “political convention” by doing what the Constitution has not stipulated to achieve the spirit of a parliamentary system.
However, as more synchronized elections are to take place — starting in 2008, legislative elections have taken place every four years instead of three, which gave rise to a debate in 2011 and last year concerning the synchronization of presidential and legislative elections — the gap issue needs an institutionalized solution, rather than an expedient move.
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS