The popularity of Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) is worrying both the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), and there are also rumors that opinions diverge on whether the presidential and legislative elections next year should be held on the same day.
Before the 2012 presidential election, many questioned the decision to move it forward to coincide with the legislative election. If DPP Chairperson and presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) had won, there would have been a four-month “window period,” during which President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) would have been a lame-duck president.
A president who loses all hope of being sheltered by their party after stepping down, when their successor is from a rival party, will usually do anything to protect themselves before leaving office. Ma might sign presidential orders to cover his close aids, sell out the nation’s interests or start up the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District (貢寮). In other words, the scary thing is that he might be ready to risk anything.
Some say such a problem can be prevented, but they are dreaming. Until Ma steps down on May 20 next year, he is the incumbent president, protected by Article 52 of the Constitution, which states that “the President shall not, without having been recalled, or having been relieved of his functions, be liable to criminal prosecution unless he is charged with having committed an act of rebellion or treason.” Can people demand that he do nothing during those four months if the KMT loses the presidential election? This is impossible, because this would be unconstitutional and illegal.
Last month, the Central Election Commission said that almost 70 percent of the public were in favor of combining the two elections. The question is: Did the commission also inform them about the four-month window period, which could have unpredictable consequences? Moreover, the commission conducted the survey soon after Ko’s victory in last year’s nine-in-one elections. Why is it conducting a survey on voters’ preference for combining the two elections? It is trying to mislead voters?
This kind of handover from one president to another can lead to problems like those previously seen in the US. At the time, Washington handled such problems resolutely by passing the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution in 1933 to move the inauguration day of the president and vice president forward from March to January. It was a resolute move because the amendment would cut the incumbent president’s term by almost two months.
The commission is an independent government agency. Although most parties fight selfishly for their own gains, commission members should act out of concern for the nation and all future generations. If both the agency and the two major parties suddenly think that it is necessary to combine the two elections, they could just go ahead and do so, and then wait for voters’ final verdict. Otherwise they could learn from the US and shorten Ma’s term by promptly passing a legislative proposal for a constitutional amendment this year, so voters can vote on the proposal in a referendum held on the same day as the two elections. By cutting Ma’s term by several months, they would be able to resolve a national crisis.
If they think this is inappropriate, they could separate the presidential and legislative elections and postpone the former to late April next year. This would seem to be an easier and more humanistic way of dealing with the issue rather than passing a constitutional amendment.
Christian Fan Jiang is deputy convener of the Northern Taiwan Society’s legal and political group.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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