From: hsiang@sbhsiang.cs.sunysb.edu (J. Hsiang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Control?! (The Six-Year...)
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:01:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: sbcs.1992Apr16.170151.18770
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook

In article <1992Apr16.101427.10761@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> thuang@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Tze-yau Huang) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.215629.9888@sbcs.sunysb.edu> hsiang@sbhsiang.cs.sunysb.edu (J. Hsiang) writes:
>
>>What I see in the recent brouhaha in the NA is power struggle, not ideological
>>struggle.  What really should be argued in the NA, is whether the political
>>system in Taiwan should be presidential or parliamentary.  In the latter,
>>the majority party of the parliament forms the government, and the president
>>is more of a ceremonial figurehead.  In this case, the question of direct or
>>indirect presidential election is totally moot.   
>
>Incorrect.  KMT calls for mixed system and no KMT member is openly
>challenging this idea.  KMT also calls for "direct election" of
>prisedent either by voting for president candidates or voting for
>president candidates' supporters from NA candidates.  System-wise, KMT's
>proposal is very close to a presidential system especially with the
>Control Yuan members to be nominated by the president.  The "delegated
>direct election of president" is not really different form direct
>election except that voters would have to vote the president candidate
>and the NA candidate and party proportional candidates through one
>ballot.  Ballot buying will be easy for each NA candidate in his/her
>small district.  KMT chose this complex but corruptive scheme arguing
>that ballots directly casted to president candidate will create Taiwan
>Preisdent.  This is definitely ideological consideration.
>

By choosing a complex and corrupted schem one has a better chance to
hold on to power.  What does this have to do with ideology?  Unless
you call power grabbing an ideology.


>>THe parliamentary system
>>is MUCH better for Taiwan than presidential, since it makes the strongman
>>government less likely to recur.  DPP doesn't want the parliamentary
>>system because they don't have enough manpower or popular base to win a
>>majority in the parliament.  (DPP stands a much better chance with a
>>presidential system since the party has a few excellent demagogues.) 
>
>Taiwan did practice quasi-parliamentary system after the death of CKS
>and before his son was promoted from the Exec. Yuan Chief to the
>President.  It did not stop strongman tradition then. 

What you called "quasi-parliamentary system" was a way for the young Chiang
to defeat the old guards and obtain power.  It had nothing to do with
parliamentary system per se and it was not intended to prevent the emergence
of a strongman.

>A more effective
>prescription would be to have a much more decentralized government
>structure with local and provincial governments makes more decisions.
>DPP adopted the suggestions from friendly citizen groups because
>oppositions realized that people has been alienated from the government
>and direct election of president will give people a sense of
>participation after decades of totalitarian rule.  
>

When President Lee moved to solidify the presidential power I didn't see
any cry of foul play from the DPP camp (at least not on the Independent
Weekly News or The Journalist).  Apparently they don't seem to be disturbed
by Lee's move.  Perhaps they figured that one day one of them may become
the president and would enjoy the consolidated power?

As an aside, if you have any experience with the local governments of
the United States, you must realize how corrupted it can be.
The local governments (at the county and town level, for instance)
are usually controlled by businessmen who freely exercise their
privilege to move things for their own benefit.  Without the media to
scrutinize, their activities can be much more blatant than the
national government.  I don't think delegating more power to local
governments is so directly related to the level of corruption a political
system can have.