After 15 months on the job, former premier Lin Chuan (林全) tendered his resignation, saying he had accomplished his mission. Soon after his resignation was approved, he was replaced by former Tainan mayor William Lai (賴清德).
Since Lin became premier, the academic-turned-politician performed the tasks given to him by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) — he pushed through several changes as the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for the first time controlled both the Cabinet and the legislature.
He should be given due praise for doing this, but the overall performance of his Cabinet was unsatisfactory, and resulted in low approval ratings and frequent calls for a reshuffle.
To be fair, Lin made contributions to the nation during his term. Under his leadership, the Executive Yuan proposed the industrial innovation plan, the Forward-looking Infrastructure Development Program and tax reform. It also initiated transitional justice, energy transformation and a five-day workweek, while beginning to implement long-term care, childcare, food safety, air pollution prevention and social housing policies.
The Lin Cabinet should also be credited for its cooperation with Tsai’s push for pension and judicial reform.
However, Lin undeniably failed to gain public support. He was strongly criticized for appointing “old pan-blue men,” and pan-green camp supporters found it difficult to agree with such appointments after the DPP regained power.
As expected, this “old” Cabinet lacked a fresh and aggressive approach, and the pan-blue members lacked local awareness and remained stuck in their old bureaucratic routines.
Many Cabinet members were also technocrats whose implementation and problem-solving abilities were inferior to their knowledge, and their ideas and attitudes were out of touch with the civil sector, common sense and the general public as they displayed an inability to understand people’s hardships.
They remained in their ivory towers and failed to act with a civil servant’s humility and communicate policy decisions to the public.
Another flaw was the absence of coordination, although this is a long-standing flaw that did not originate with Lin.
This departmentalism must be eliminated, because it is crucial that the government’s left hand knows what its right hand is doing, an issue that any Cabinet must address with urgency.
Lin’s insistence on certain issues and personnel appointments was also controversial.
The implementation of a five-day workweek should have been welcomed, but the “one fixed day and one flexible day off” workweek became inflexible due to changes to labor regulations.
This has hurt the economy and elicited a lot of complaints, causing workers, employers and the government to all lose.
Still, Lin insisted against amending the act, delivering a serious blow to the overall performance of his Cabinet.
In addition, the nation’s most urgent task is to boost the economy, but Lin — an economist — was criticized for appointing financial and economic officials who failed to boost the local economy even though the global economy was recovering.
Since this “financial gang” dominated the financial sector during Lin’s premiership, government agencies became more conservative. The long-term habit of officials shielding one another was exposed in the Mega Financial Holding Co case, and mistakes were repeatedly made in the Chang Hwa Commerical Bank case, badly hurting the Cabinet’s image.
In light of the previous Cabinet’s low support rating, the public has placed high expectations on Lai.
Since he took over the premiership from a less popular predecessor, the support rating for his Cabinet is likely to rise if he listens to public opinion, and remedies personnel and administrative flaws.
In particular, judging from his basic values, ability, statements, political achievements and crisis management, Lai has withstood these tests ever since entering government.
Some of his fans even call him “Lai the Divine,” but political affairs are not about creating gods, which are unlikely to exist in Taiwan’s political environment.
The Cabinet should focus on practical results by taking advantage of the public’s high expectations.
From this perspective, the responsibility is heavy and the road is long for Lai. It is crucial that he knows his subordinates well, recruits talented people from all sides and puts them in the right positions.
Lai is in charge of identifying political appointees, so it is only natural that he should make their ability his first consideration.
The Cabinet should not be restricted to academics and experts — it could also include people from the industrial sector or with political experience.
Since stimulating the economy is the primary task, financial and economic officials should make this their focus while avoiding less pragmatic policies.
Lai should also pay attention to DPP factions to avoid causing chaos as a new political situation is developing.
Lin should not take the full blame for his Cabinet’s low approval rating, because he was not responsible for security and diplomatic appointments. Since Tsai took office last year, she has safeguarded the bottom line of her China policy, but has lacked aggressiveness.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government disgusted the public by the manner in which it curried favor with Beijing, but Tsai’s government has also disappointed by trying not to offend China.
Decisions are made by people, so with a new premier and Cabinet, Tsai should also adopt new thinking and a new approach in personnel deployment.
With the replacement of the premier, a new phase has begun. The government must make an effort to meet the public’s expectations.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers