For the first time since the first direct presidential election was held in Taiwan on March 23, 1996, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) eight years in office will provide a historic lens to look at how the presidential system has worked with the election of a pro-unification president. Indeed, it provides much food for thought. From the perspective of the electorate, the Ma years represent their first experience of being governed by a directly elected president who also happens to be pro-unification.
However, it seems that the electorate has had quite enough of the experience. Other reasons notwithstanding, the system has been found wanting. While on the surface people could say that a given president can only seek re-election once, this also comes with fixed-term guarantees, which is the source of much concern for a great many people.
Taiwanese have had to allow a president, who has been labelled a “bumbler” and someone willing to surrender national sovereignty, to run around like a bull in a China shop for the best part of a decade. In theory, he should have been rendered a lame duck president some time ago, but in fact he has been able to push through on the strength of his party, leaving the entire nation unable to do anything about it.
All that can be done now is to wait for the election next year. Even then there will be a four-month waiting period before a new president is sworn in. The president-elect will be like a prince waiting on the sidelines for his father, the king, clinging on to his last breath, to pass. During that time, the nation will be in a state of limbo.
Especially with the long-standing and intractable stand-off between the pro-unification and pro-independence camps, the public is set to endure a four-month handover period, with a directly elected, pro-unification president remaining legally in control of the nation, with voters unable to use the law to curtail his misuse of constitutional power. Up until the last minute of his term, on the eve of the official handover of presidential power, he will remain the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and the highest representative of the nation. What will he do in the intervening period?
In 2005, then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) joined forces with former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) to promote the idea of a new constitution. In the political climate of that time, when the nation had yet to experience the governance of a pro-unification president, it was easy to assume that any president would be pro-
independence, and there was near unanimous support for the presidential system and direct presidential elections. Little has changed since then, and the pro-independence camp sees it as only natural that Taiwan should have a presidential system and direct elections.
Given the wounds inflicted by this bumbling bull of a president, at a time when Taiwanese are still anticipating a long handover period in which a pro-unification regime remains in power, and when there are no guarantees that a second pro-unification president will not be elected, people might want to think long and hard about whether the system is right for Taiwan.
For example, the parliamentary Cabinet system does not have fixed-term guarantees: The nation could have a collective decisionmaking model that more accurately reflects the public mood on the unification-
independence issue, instead of concentrating power in one individual, therefore avoiding a situation where the Presidential Office is the source of national turmoil. Surely that is worth thinking about.
Christian Fan Jiang is deputy convener of the Northern Taiwan Society’s legal and political group.
Translated by Paul Cooper
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS