So today’s headline:
Well, that didn’t take long. Another Ma Ying-jeou already, and she hasn’t even been inaugurated.
Double standards, huh? 
Did she promise to quit?
Tsai is finally creaking open her black box.
She certainly gave that impression, though without actually saying so. From today’s Taipei Times…
I have said in the past that this shouldn’t be allowed in any political party, be it DPP, KMT, PFP, or any other combination of the alphabet. The temptation to crush possible rivals or policy positions within the party (and thus set yourself up as dictator) is too great. Ma Ying-jeou’s recent disastrous attempt to force through the Service Trade Agreement is a rather spectacular example, and ultimately brought the KMT to it’s knees. No doubt many of you are happy about that, but Tsai could easily deliver the DPP it’s own Waterloo. We shall see.
[quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”]
I have said in the past that this shouldn’t be allowed in any political party, be it DPP, KMT, PFP, or any other combination of the alphabet. The temptation to crush possible rivals or policy positions within the party (and thus set yourself up as dictator) is too great. Ma Ying-jeou’s recent disastrous attempt to force through the Service Trade Agreement is a rather spectacular example, and ultimately brought the KMT to it’s knees. No doubt many of you are happy about that, but Tsai could easily deliver the DPP it’s own Waterloo. We shall see.[/quote]
I agree. Hopefully she would step down from party chairman after 2 years or so. CSB wasn’t the party chairman for the first 2 years of his presidency, he became the party chairman for an election. I don’t know what’s broken in the system that makes all presidents feel like they need to be the party chairman, but hopefully it will get fixed to put an end to this phenomenon
That’s how it is in my country. The benefits are usually more efficient government able to enact the policies they were voted in for.
Whether the President of Taiwan should also be his/her party’s leader will remain highly controversial with strong arguments on both sides. But it raises an even bigger question regarding Taiwan’s current political system which is a strange hybrid that is neither purely Presidential (such as USA) or Parliamentary ( such as UK). It is closer to being a Presidential system but is not totally so, as we still have a “Premier” which should not exist under a Presidential system. Some argue that Taiwan’s systems works like France but that’s not true either. In France, there is a popularly elected President and also a prime minister. The PM has to be formally approved by the Parliament/legislature so which ever party/parties control the legislature has the power to determine the PM regardless of who is President. If that model was copied in Taiwan, President Chen would have been forced to choose a PM from the KMT throughout his 8 years in office.
In the USA with its Presidential system, political parties do not have a formal leader. The Democratic and Republic parties in the US have a head of their “Democratic National Committee” or “Republican National Committee” but that is largely a fund-raising role. In a Parliamentary system, the head of the party/coalition with majority in Parliament is be definition the leader of the country (such as in UK).
That’s (at least currently) how it is in mainland China as well.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping[/quote]
I knew Canada was close to tyranny but I never knew just how close. 
Yup. The DPP always rails against the former One-Party State of the Republic of China. Hell, they still do. And now, they’re moving in the same direction.
Hold on to those exaggerations, dirt. You will need them when President Trump is sworn in.
Canada is a parliamentary system, the prime minister is naturally always the chairman of the party, however, Taiwan is a semi-presidential system in name, a (twisted and dysfunctional) presidential system in practice, being the chairman of the party and the president at the same time in such system is not exactly the most democratic move in the world, but well, Taiwan has always been an unhealthy democracy and will continue to be one for decades to come so whatevs.
Canada is a parliamentary system, the prime minister is naturally always the chairman of the party, however, Taiwan is a semi-presidential system in name, a (twisted and dysfunctional) presidential system in practice, being the chairman of the party and the president at the same time in such system is not exactly the most democratic move in the world, but well, Taiwan has always been an unhealthy democracy and will continue to be one for decades to come so whatevs.[/quote]
Nobody criticizes Parliamentary systems for being undemocratic in the sense that the leader of the country is also the leader of the governing party/coalition of parties. So what’s the big deal when the same thing happens in Taiwan? I agree Taiwan has a screwed-up semi-presidential system that is neither here nor there (see my earlier post) and that is the bigger problem IMO. Both President Chen and Ma tried NOT to be their party’s chairman at the same time and both took it back later. The system is dysfunctional either way.
Hold on to those exaggerations, dirt. You will need them when President Trump is sworn in.[/quote]
Xi Jinping derives his power as the Chairman of the Communist Party of China, his “President” title is largely ceremonial and for foreign consumption, everybody in the PRC calls him 主席. Tsai’s move is very… Chinese.
Hold on to those exaggerations, dirt. You will need them when President Trump is sworn in.[/quote]
Xi Jinping derives his power as the Chairman of the Communist Party of China, his “President” title is largely ceremonial and for foreign consumption, everybody in the PRC calls him 主席. Tsai’s move is very… Chinese.[/quote]
Even if you had a point, which you don’t, what is your point?
Hold on to those exaggerations, dirt. You will need them when President Trump is sworn in.[/quote]
Xi Jinping derives his power as the Chairman of the Communist Party of China, his “President” title is largely ceremonial and for foreign consumption, everybody in the PRC calls him 主席. Tsai’s move is very… Chinese.[/quote]
Even if you had a point, which you don’t, what is your point?[/quote]
Oh the arrogance. The point obviously is that there are similar patterns. Which would have been pointed out much earlier already by the way had not Tsai won but Chu instead and remained KMT chair. All that dang-guo drabble and such.
You write in English. I write in English. You are arrogant. I am arrogant. You are male. I am male. Notice a pattern? Yeah, we are human, and so there are always going to be similar patterns, and overlaps in how we conduct ourselves, and how we are defined. But unless those overlaps are significant then you have nothing worth mentioning unless you have an agenda.
Being head of state and party is common is democracies around the world. In Taiwan, it is probably necessary because of the poorly defined nature of the presidency. If you want to be effective, you have to be party leader. Nothing China-like about that. It’s a very very local and pragmatic solution to a very very local problem.
Personally I don’t think I ever criticized Ma as being both president and party chair.
[quote=“Mucha Man”]
Being head of state and party is common is democracies around the world. In Taiwan, it is probably necessary because of the poorly defined nature of the presidency. If you want to be effective, you have to be party leader. Nothing China-like about that. It’s a very very local and pragmatic solution to a very very local problem.
Personally I don’t think I ever criticized Ma as being both president and party chair.[/quote]
Being head of government as well as the chairman of the ruling party is not common among democracies around the world, only in parliamentary systems such as the UK, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Japan, Germany etc. You probably feel that way because the majority of the successful democracies out there are parliamentary systems. The reason to this is that in parliamentary systems the parliament is basically the entirety of the administration. The advantage of it is that the policing would be easier (on paper) as the executive and the legislature are the same body.
Trias politica applies to presidential and semi-presidential systems around the world, such as the US, France, South Korea etc. Taiwan is one of them. In these countries, the president is never the chairman of the ruling party. Obama is not the chairman of Democratic Party, Hollande is not the chairman of Parti Socialiste, Park is not the chairman of Saenuri party, only Ma is the chairman of KMT and Tsai is the chairman of DPP. In presidential/semi-presidential system the executive and legislature are separated, and the legislature is supposed to play the role of checks and balances. When the chairman of the party which takes majority in the legislature is also the president, the legislature becomes a rubber stamp–definitely not democratic.
That’s why Tsai shouldn’t be the chairman of DPP.
And China should not be brought into the conversation at all since it’s about as democratic as a pile of diapers.
[quote=“Gain”]…Trias politica applies to presidential and semi-presidential systems around the world, such as the US, France, South Korea etc. Taiwan is one of them. In these countries, the president is never the chairman of the ruling party. Obama is not the chairman of Democratic Party, Hollande is not the chairman of Parti Socialiste, Park is not the chairman of Saenuri party, only Ma is the chairman of KMT and Tsai is the chairman of DPP. In presidential/semi-presidential system the executive and legislature are separated, and the legislature is supposed to play the role of checks and balances. When the chairman of the party which takes majority in the legislature is also the president, the legislature becomes a rubber stamp–definitely not democratic.
[/quote]
The US president’s role as party head is regular cited in newspapers and scholarly papers. It is not an official role, he is not chairman, but effectively he is party head, and has been since Andrew Jackson. Right now Wasserman is chair of the DNC and it is widely reported that should Clinton win the primaries and become pres she will oust Wasserman. I see no reason to argue that when a president is considered the head of his party by the media and political scientists, and has the power to put in place a chair of his or her choosing, his role is inherently different from Tsai’s in assuming a dual position in Taiwan. You are splitting meaningless hairs.