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.
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