The violent protests against pension reform that took place on April 19 focused attention on the passive resistance against the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government that the police displayed.
The protests are open and transparent, and everyone is well aware of the fact that the protesters have used violence, yet the police did not address the situation. In practice, this problem is not limited to the police; it also extends to military personnel, civil servants and public school teachers.
According to the nation’s political system, policies should be finalized by the legislative branch and executed by political appointees, while civil servants simply follow orders to implement them. However, traditionally, the bureaucracy has directed both policymaking and implementation.
In nations with a Cabinet system, the government is formed by the majority in the legislature and members of parliament serve as politically appointed Cabinet ministers. Policymaking and implementation are thus controlled by the majority in the country’s legislative institution.
Elected lawmakers are not specialists and they do not necessarily have a specialist’s understanding of the legislative process and policy implementation. These tasks frequently fall to the bureaucracy, which means that it is normal to have the bureaucracy direct policy implementation. For example, politically appointed ministers in Japan often follow the suggestions of civil servants.
In Taiwan and the US, the executive and the legislative branches are separate from each other and voters elect lawmakers as well as the executive leader — the president. Policy is finalized in the legislature and implementation is directed by political appointees. The head of the executive appoints specialists to serve as ministers and civil servants act on the instructions of ministers. While this system works in the US, things are more problematic in Taiwan.
In the past, the “10,000-year legislature,” which consisted of the legislators, National Assembly representatives and Control Yuan members that were elected in China in 1947, controlled all legislation, but the members were unable to make laws, which means that policy was made and implemented by the executive.
In other words, the legislature simply provided a rubber stamp for the Executive Yuan. Ministers were not specialists, as Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) picked them based on connections and loyalty. Since political appointees lacked expertise, policymaking and implementation fell to the civil servants in the bureaucracy, which is very similar to how it works in a Cabinet system.
When the DPP took office, it had the chance to restore the separation between the executive branch and lawmaking, so that policy would be finalized by the legislature while the head of the executive branch appoints specialists as ministers, distancing itself from the tradition that civil servants direct policy implementation.
However, the DPP has changed and, just like the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), it now relies on connections for elections and appointments. Political appointees who are selected based on connections normally are not specialists. They often cling to their positions and their perspective on the world is informed by their own interests. This is the KMT’s model of political appointment.
Because the DPP government has adopted the KMT’s approach, it has to rely on the bureaucracy for policy implementation. However, most civil servants are working against the DPP — a worrying prospect for the government.
Chen Mao-hsiung is a retired National Sun Yat-sen University professor and chairman of the Society for the Promotion of Taiwanese Security.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Since the end of the Cold War, the US-China espionage battle has arguably become the largest on Earth. Spying on China is vital for the US, as China’s growing military and technological capabilities pose direct challenges to its interests, especially in defending Taiwan and maintaining security in the Indo-Pacific. Intelligence gathering helps the US counter Chinese aggression, stay ahead of threats and safeguard not only its own security, but also the stability of global trade routes. Unchecked Chinese expansion could destabilize the region and have far-reaching global consequences. In recent years, spying on China has become increasingly difficult for the US
Lately, China has been inviting Taiwanese influencers to travel to China’s Xinjiang region to make films, weaving a “beautiful Xinjiang” narrative as an antidote to the international community’s criticisms by creating a Potemkin village where nothing is awry. Such manipulations appear harmless — even compelling enough for people to go there — but peeling back the shiny veneer reveals something more insidious, something that is hard to ignore. These films are not only meant to promote tourism, but also harbor a deeper level of political intentions. Xinjiang — a region of China continuously listed in global human rights reports —
The annual summit of East Asia and other events around the ASEAN summit in October and November every year have become the most important gathering of leaders in the Indo-Pacific region. This year, as Laos is the chair of ASEAN, it was privileged to host all of the ministerial and summit meetings associated with ASEAN. Besides the main summit, this included the high-profile East Asia Summit, ASEAN summits with its dialogue partners and the ASEAN Plus Three Summit with China, Japan and South Korea. The events and what happens around them have changed over the past 15 years from a US-supported, ASEAN-led
To the dismay of the Chinese propaganda machine, President William Lai (賴清德) has been mounting an information offensive through his speeches. No longer are Taiwanese content with passively reacting to China’s encroachment in the international window of discourse, but Taiwan is now setting the tone and pace of conversation. Last month, Lai’s statement that “If China wants Taiwan it should also take back land from Russia” made international headlines, pointing out the duplicity of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) revanchism. History shows that the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) stance on regional territorial disputes has not been consistent. The early CCP
RSS