Former transportation and communications minister Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lo Chih-cheng (羅致政) have expressed interest in running for Taipei and New Taipei City mayor respectively, but have been stuck in political limbo due to a lack of primaries. Their problem is not whether they could win a primary, it is that they cannot even gain admission to the game.
Minister of Health and Welfare Chen Shih-chung (陳時中), whom DPP supporters widely expect to run for Taipei mayor, could eventually be picked by the party, but as the party gradually loses momentum due to a delay in making nominations, Chen said that he no does not want to be a “spare tire.”
Of the local seats up for grabs on Nov. 26, the Taipei and New Taipei mayoral positions are the most important. If the decision about who represents the DPP in those elections is decided by party chairperson President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) alone, without any primaries, would voters accept them? Has the party not sensed the danger here?
The DPP Central Executive Committee last year approved special regulations allowing the party chairperson to nominate mayoral and commissioner candidates in the six special municipalities.
Neither Lin nor Lo voiced objections to the move, so they are partly to blame for their situation, as they failed to protest the deterioration of the party’s traditional democratic principles. They not only hurt their own rights, but those of other party members. They have no leg to stand on with their complaints.
The abolition of primaries leaves no mechanism to ensure fair competition. The 19th-century historian John Dalberg-Acton, better known as Lord Acton said that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
His remark encapsulates the negative consequences of power without constraint. Apart from corruption, such power inevitably stifles competence. Tsai delaying the direct appointment of mayoral candidates until the last minute is disrespectful to all mayoral hopefuls, and shows contempt for local voters. It is also a lost opportunity for the party to demonstrate decisiveness. This is what incompetence under a dictatorship looks like.
The controversy over the early retirement of former National Police Agency director-general Chen Ja-chin (陳家欽) last month serves as another example. After stepping down, Chen accused Minister of the Interior Hsu Kuo-yung (徐國勇) of intervening in police personnel affairs. Hsu said that such power belonged to him, and that the former police head’s accusation was laughable.
However, Hsu was not quite right.
Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) once said that the president is in charge of the “eight major intelligence units” through the National Security Bureau of the National Security Council, which reports directly to the Presidential Office.
While the president has that prerogative, respect for the professionals within an agency should be an overriding concern. Without regard for their independence, the National Police Agency would hardly be able to lead a force of 80,000.
Under the Organizational Act of the National Security Bureau (國家安全局組織法), the bureau is responsible for the guidance, coordination and support of the nation’s major intelligence units, including the National Police Agency. How, then, did problems get out of control? It is clearly a result of the president’s incompetence. The next concern is whether the police force of 80,000 will be able to keep it together.
Chin Heng-wei is a political commentator.
Translated by Eddy Chang
The FBI on Sunday arrested Wanying “Heather” Chang (張婉瑩) on suspicion of surveiling the family of the son of President William Lai (賴清德) on behalf of China, an example of “transnational repression” to suppress dissent in Taiwan and abroad. Zhang, a 34-year old realtor in California, was arrested on charges of working as an unregistered agent for China. She and an accomplice were accused of taking photos and videos of Lai’s son and his family, and sending information about their whereabouts and license plates to Chinese officials. “The information could be used by China to gain leverage over the Taiwanese president
Taiwan might just give up. That’s the argument Simon Shuster made in The Atlantic’s October issue. The US is unreliable, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leadership is aligned with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and Taiwan does not have the military capability to defend itself in a prolonged war without help. What hope does Taiwan have? Quite a bit more, in fact, than Shuster lets on. Shuster points to genuine problems. The first Donald Trump administration had a mostly positive record on Taiwan policy. It regularized the arms sales process, enhanced the military-to-military relationship, and treated Taiwan more like a normal
On Oct. 10, 1911, gunfire in Wuchang (武昌) shattered the stillness of late-Qing China. What began as a regional uprising quickly ignited a chain reaction across the empire, toppling a dynastic order that had endured for more than two millennia and ushering in one of Asia’s first republics — the Republic of China (ROC). From that moment, the 10th day of the 10th month became a date of epochal significance, not merely in Chinese history, but in the broader arc of Asia’s encounter with modernity. Yet today, as Taiwan marks Double Ten National Day, the holiday’s meaning has undergone a transformation
A few days ago, we left our breakfast midway to catch a glimpse of the fighter jets in formation. It was a spectacular sight. We knew it was part of practice drills for Double Ten National Day celebrations and reminded us of the Annual Republic day celebration in India. While channel surfing, I came across a news debate about immigration laws, where an academic asked a fellow panelist: “Why should we be interested in your point of view when you don’t even belong here?” That got me thinking. Was our enthusiasm about the upcoming Double Ten celebrations unwarranted? Was this
RSS