The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has suggested that the nation institute an annual “state of the nation” address delivered by the president to the legislature as part of its proposals for the new legislature. Its stated objective for the reform is to rein in the executive excesses of the president, making them more accountable to the legislature. The idea of a state of the nation address is certainly one worth exploring. It could bring some discipline to the executive branch, making its agenda more accountable.
However, if the KMT’s true intention is democratic accountability and not simply to stymie a Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) president from enacting their legislative agenda, the KMT might want to also look at its own conduct in opposition. To have a functioning democracy, there needs to be a well-functioning opposition to effectively hold the government accountable, something the KMT has sorely lacked over the past decade.
Many nations have something akin to a state of the nation address delivered by the head of state on a regular or annual basis — providing the head of state with the opportunity to outline their legislative agenda in the upcoming year, talk about where they think the nation stands and the challenges it faces. In the US, this comes in the form of the State of the Union address delivered by the president to a joint session of the US Congress. In the UK, the state opening of parliament fulfills this role, whereby the sovereign delivers a speech informing the nation of the government’s legislative priorities for the new parliamentary session.
Taiwan already has something akin to a state of the nation address, and that is the annual Double Ten National Day address, delivered on Oct. 10. Like the US’ State of the Union address, the National Day address provides the president with the opportunity to take stock of where the nation is, where it is going, the challenges it faces and offer some proposals to tackle issues.
However, that address is less objective-oriented compared with that of the UK and the US, nor is it delivered in the legislature.
This is, presumably, the purpose of the KMT’s proposal — to make the president more accountable to the legislature. Benefits could certainly flow from this, as an annual presidential address to the legislature could bolster its power, making the president more accountable to it and the nation. Additionally, government organs as a whole could become more efficient, with everyone pulling in the same direction.
The KMT argues that the past eight years of DPP governance has been characterized by executive overreach riding roughshod over democracy, whereby a DPP president working with a DPP majority in legislature undermined lawmakers from being able to hold the government accountable. This is not entirely unwarranted criticism. There are certainly examples — such as the NT$800 billion (US$25.55 million) Forward-looking Infrastructure Development Program — which was passed in 2017 through the legislature with minimal accountability.
However, in any democracy, for an executive to be efficiently held to account, there needs to be a properly functioning opposition. An example of this abroad is in the UK, where former leader of the opposition Jeremy Corbyn’s incompetent and divisive leadership of the Labour Party enabled the Conservative Party to ride roughshod over democratic norms in the wake of the 2016 Brexit vote.
If the KMT truly wishes to advance Taiwanese democracy and make the president more accountable and transparent, it should prioritize getting its own house in order, guided by the wishes and values of Taiwanese, not its China-leaning elite. No democracy can work well with such a dysfunctional opposition so divided and estranged from the nation.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
The war between Israel and Iran offers far-reaching strategic lessons, not only for the Middle East, but also for East Asia, particularly Taiwan. As tensions rise across both regions, the behavior of global powers, especially the US under the US President Donald Trump, signals how alliances, deterrence and rapid military mobilization could shape the outcomes of future conflicts. For Taiwan, facing increasing pressure and aggression from China, these lessons are both urgent and actionable. One of the most notable features of the Israel-Iran war was the prompt and decisive intervention of the US. Although the Trump administration is often portrayed as
RSS