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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS