A year ago, the government launched the National Development Council to better meet the nation’s economic needs. By merging the Council for Economic Planning and Development, the Research, Development and Evaluation Commission, as well as parts of the Public Construction Commission, the new council represents six decades of organizational evolution for the nation’s top economic policymaking organ, so it should be able to achieve greater efficiency in economic planning.
Wrong. The review of a draft bill governing the establishment of free economic pilot zones — which the development council has geared up for implementation to help boost private investment and create jobs in Taiwan — has progressed rather slowly in the Legislative Yuan over the past year. In addition, if one takes into consideration the results of the Nov. 29 nine-in-one elections — which showed the general public’s “deep dissatisfaction toward the government,” in the words of National Development Council Minister Kuan Chung-ming (管中閔) last week, the bill is not likely to be passed before next year’s presidential and legislative elections.
That is in part why Kuan tendered his resignation on Thursday last week, even though he recently made headlines by gaining the approval of Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) for the council’s planned cluster of business startups in the Taipei Expo Park. In his resignation statement issued on Thursday night, Kuan said he decided to step down because he had sensed people’s discontent and impatience with the current political and economic situation.
Political observers have quickly pointed out that frustration over the legislative process was the main reason behind Kuan’s resignation. Some commentators have also said several former ministers quit jobs in President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) adminstration because they had been hampered by lawmakers’ efforts to block important economic projects, but are these resignations really connected to legislative gridlock over controversial bills or the personal attributes of individual officials?
Critics and government watchdog groups have long suggested one simple, straightforward idea for government officials pushing forward controversial bills: Move the policymaking process out of the back room and into the light of day, allowing the public access to information through transparent practices, and making it easier to hold ministers and legislators to account. On the other hand, Financial Supervisory Commission Chairman William Tseng (曾銘宗) makes an example for other ministers that one must engage in comprehensive communication with lawmakers and all parties concerned in order to obtain a certain level of consensus on important bills during negotiations.
Since he took the helm at the commission in August 2013, Tseng has been equally determined and flexible in promoting new policies while helping the financial sector cope with the fast-changing landscape. More importantly, he has a harmonious, well-rounded personality, offsetting his characteristic prudence and pragmatism, that helped smooth the legislative passage last month of draft amendments to the Banking Act (銀行法), the Insurance Act (保險法), the Act Governing International Financial Business (國際金融業務條例), the Financial Consumer Protection Act (金融消費者保護法) and the Electronics Payment Processing Institutions Act (電子支付機構管理條例). He is the first chairman since the commission was established in 2004 to see five financial bills clear the legislative floor in a single session. That is not easily achieved.
Good policies without the necessary public support are doomed to fail in the legislature. The challenge for Cabinet members is not why lawmakers do not support their policies, but how to share their vision with the public, whose trust the government needs to win back.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS