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
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