The first televised debate in preparation for the March 22 presidential election, in which the public will have an opportunity to ask questions to the candidates, will take place on Sunday.
A few days ago, the main organizers -- several newspapers and TV stations -- unveiled the list of the 20 participants who have been selected to ask questions of the candidates. The categories are wide ranging, from the cross-strait issue and foreign affairs to birth rates and the gambling industry. It is clear that the public has high expectations for the policy implementation of the next president.
The main organizers of the debate said that not many questions will deal with national defense, foreign affairs or cross-strait issues, as most people seem to be concerned with living standards and the economy. We can therefore hope that the two candidates will use this platform to propose concrete and comprehensive policies on matters that clearly are of concern to Taiwanese.
In the mind of the public, the president should possess wide ranging capabilities and have an opinion on and a policy for every issue.
There is a concern, however: Regardless of how many concrete promises the two candidates make in the televised debate, the question is, what are the chances that these policy promises really will be implemented? An even more serious issue is the question of whether the candidates should be making promises in the first place.
Under the constitutional system, the Cabinet is the nation's highest executive institution. This raises the question of whether it is in line with the spirit of the Constitution for presidential candidates to make all kinds of policy promises and whether the future premier is bound to implement the promises made by the president during an election campaign.
Looking at political realities, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) holds less than one-quarter of all seats in the legislature and the party's presidential candidate, Frank Hsieh (
If Hsieh were to win the presidential election, then how could he -- if he really is to be a passive president who delegates executive power -- implement all the promises he made during the election campaign? Or will he simply blame the legislature for being a "source of chaos," or claim that promises made during the election campaign do not necessarily have to be implemented?
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou (
The most preposterous aspect of the constitutional system is, in fact, the huge discrepancy between the public's expectations and understanding of the role of the president and the actual limitations that are imposed on the president by the Constitution.
The election campaign should be an opportunity to educate the public on these issues. But the media, the political elite and even the presidential candidates have acted in a way that increases the discrepancies between fact and perception.
In this context, some people have begun to wonder if now might not be the appropriate time to move from a semi-presidential to a clear-cut Cabinet system.
In the 2004 presidential election campaign, I was lucky enough to be one of the people who was allowed to question the candidates in what was the nation's first-ever televised debate between presidential candidates.
My question was this: "During every presidential campaign, the various candidates bring forward a multitude of policy proposals. However, according to the current Constitution, the Cabinet is the nation's highest executive office. Although the Cabinet is answerable to the legislature, it is the president who has the right to appoint the premier. Until the Constitution is amended or until there is a new constitution in place, what role do you think a presidential candidate who promises to abide by the Constitution should play when it comes to formulating public policy if we assume that he or she wants to follow the spirit of constitutionalism and responsible politics? And if the Constitution is amended, or if a new constitution is adopted, in what way do you think the roles of the president and the premier should be adjusted?"
I am still waiting for an answer.
Wang Yeh-lih is a professor of political science at Tunghai University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Apart from the first arms sales approval for Taiwan since US President Donald Trump took office, last month also witnessed another milestone for Taiwan-US relations. Trump signed the Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act into law on Tuesday. Its passing without objection in the US Senate underscores how bipartisan US support for Taiwan has evolved. The new law would further help normalize exchanges between Taiwanese and US government officials. We have already seen a flurry of visits to Washington earlier this summer, not only with Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍), but also delegations led by National Security Council Secretary-General Joseph Wu
When the towers of Wang Fuk Court turned into a seven-building inferno on Wednesday last week, killing 128 people, including a firefighter, Hong Kong officials promised investigations, pledged to review regulations and within hours issued a plan to replace bamboo scaffolding with steel. It sounded decisive. It was not. The gestures are about political optics, not accountability. The tragedy was not caused by bamboo or by outdated laws. Flame-retardant netting is already required. Under Hong Kong’s Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme — which requires buildings more than 30 years old to undergo inspection every decade and compulsory repairs — the framework for
Ho Ying-lu (何鷹鷺), a Chinese spouse who was a member of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) Central Standing Committee, on Wednesday last week resigned from the KMT, accusing the party of failing to clarify its “one China” policy. In a video released in October, Ho, wearing a T-shirt featuring a portrait of Mao Zedong (毛澤東), said she hoped that Taiwan would “soon return to the embrace of the motherland” and “quickly unify — that is my purpose and my responsibility.” The KMT’s Disciplinary Committee on Nov. 19 announced that Ho had been suspended from her position on the committee, although she was
Two mayors have invited Japanese pop icon Ayumi Hamasaki to perform in their cities after her Shanghai concert was abruptly canceled on Saturday last week, a decision widely interpreted as fallout from the latest political spat between Japan and China. Organizers in Shanghai pulled Hamasaki’s show at the last minute, citing force majeure, a justification that convinced few. The cancelation came shortly after Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi remarked that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could prompt a military response from Tokyo — comments that angered Beijing and triggered a series of retaliatory moves. Hamasaki received an immediate show of support from
RSS