From: thuang@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Tze-yau Huang)
Subject: Re: Control?! (The Six-Year...)
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 10:14:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.215629.9888@sbcs.sunysb.edu> hsiang@sbhsiang.cs.sunysb.edu (J. Hsiang) writes:
>Well, call me naive, but I always thought that the whole purpose of s.c.t.
>is to increase the understanding of viewpoints, not spreading a religion.
>No wonder someone (I think it's Hsu Hsin-liang) said that TI is a religion.
>Wouldn't "democracy for Taiwan" be a better religion?
>
I think the proper translation is "faith" instead of "religion."
Democracy and autonomy works with one another.

>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.

>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.  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.  This is why DPP
choose to fight for a simpler direct election rather than the original
complex KMT scheme.

>The top echelon of KMT doesn't want it either because they are too power-crazed
>to put the well-being of the people and the country before themselves.
>
Let's say that KMT wants the government structure to be complex and
vague rather than parliamentary or presidential so it will be harder to
implement changes.

In the election '91, KMT has presented a blank check for people to sign
and many signed it.  KMT electees had promised different goals in their
different districts.  This is the source of disputes.

Tze-yau Huang