On June 10, 2009, Taiwan's president Ma Ying-jeou announced at the headquarters of the Chinese Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang (KMT), that he will run for the party chairmanship in the upcoming July election. The news sent shock waves through Taiwan's political establishment.

Ma can virtually rest assured that he will win the race. This will not only make him a new strongman as president-cum-party chairman, but also put him in the same league with his presidential predecessors Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian, who concentrated government and party power in one hand.

As he enters his second year in office, Ma has been demonstrating resolve, pushing the envelope of the dual executive system, handing down orders to the Executive Yuan and intervening in the ruling Kuomintang's internal affairs. What makes Ma, who already works 14-hour days, want to take on another Herculean task as party leader?

Reinventing Himself

The day after announcing his candidacy, Ma spoke about what made him join the race in an exclusive interview with CommonWealth Magazine. He resolutely asserted that this is not the time for dithering, that he needs to meet people's expectations and take full responsibility.

He frankly stated, "Right now in Taiwanese society, whether or not I am party chairman, everything related to the KMT, and even the pan-blue camp, is ultimately my responsibility. I have to take overall responsibility, without any excuses... At this point, I feel that I can no longer waver and watch from the sidelines as if this were someone else's business."

On the Frontline

Ma wants to tighten the screws on the somewhat loose connection between the Presidential Office, the Executive Yuan, the KMT and the Legislative Yuan.

The KMT holds three quarters of the seats in the legislature and two thirds of the seats in county and city assemblies. Ma is aware that the public expects to see political achievements, given that the KMT is in full control of governmental power.

With his candidacy Ma broke his earlier promise not to serve concurrently as president and KMT chairman. And in the future he will pull cabinet members into KMT Central Committee meetings and call party-government meetings to make the party assist the government.

Opponents worry that the KMT party leadership could become a Super Executive Yuan and blur the line between party and state. The opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) immediately published an opinion poll in which 59 percent of respondents opposed Ma's doubling as KMT chairman. Yet supporters of Ma's candidacy such as fellow law professor Su Yeong-chin believe that Ma has no other choice if he wants to stay in control of KMT candidate nominations for upcoming elections, ensure clean government, and push forward reforms and generational change within the party.

If Ma Ying-jeou, who previously served as KMT chairman before running for president, does indeed retake the helm of the party, what does he hope to accomplish with the party's help? What does he want to change?

Following are highlights from the interview.

---

Q: If you are elected KMT chairman, what new role and what changes do you envisage for the party? Why do you want to run for the chairmanship?

A: In its early days the KMT was a hegemonic party, the party led the government, but this era is over for good. Even if I concurrently serve as chairman, it is out of the question that we return to a system under which the Central Committee issues orders to the whole country.

The most basic requirements are no corruption, a diligent government, and love for the people. Four years ago when I ran for chairman these formed my political platform. Therefore, I often ask lawmakers to come to the Presidential Office for a chat, because I've discovered that there are still certain rifts that need to be mended.

For example, I participated in the campaign for penalizing public servants who as defendants in corruption cases fail to reveal the sources of their unaccounted-for assets. I found a way to reconcile the opposition of certain lawmakers with the views of the Ministry of Justice so that the law was finally passed.

Or when it came to the Assembly and Parade Act, I painstakingly reconciled the more conservative stance of the police with the more idealistic stance of social activists. Similarly, I rallied people from the farmers' movement, community builders, the Council of Agriculture and urban planners behind the Statute of Rural Renewal, preventing the inappropriate spending of NT$200 billion in resources over the next 10 years, as well as collusion with business groups, and this benefited rural communities.

I gradually came to feel that I could play a role in that regard by slowly bridging the gaps. Otherwise, we now have everything that it takes for a democratic system – a legislature, administrative departments, political parties – but sometimes rifts emerge among them, and someone is needed who can act as a rift mender. That way we won't make the outside world wonder what we are up to or be paralyzed because there is a conflict of opinions.

We now have three quarters of the seats in the legislature, and the executive is ours as well. But why do we still feel powerless sometimes? We need to get rid of this powerlessness.

Even if making this decision has been very difficult and it's stirred a lot of controversy, I can't hold back for fear of slander or ridicule. Someone still needs to make a decision and take responsibility.

Sometimes a straightforward decision is called for, even if some people are not happy with that. At least this way of doing things needs to be established, so everyone feels that this government is moving, is solving problems. We must not let ourselves slip into a situation where no one knows who is responsible.

Q: As a directly elected head of state, Taiwan's president has the strongest public mandate, but nonetheless steps back onto the second line. Is this a shortcoming of Taiwan's dual executive system?

A: Everyone feels that I am apparently caught in a maze between the first and the second line of government, but the situation is actually pretty clear. In terms of accountability toward the Legislative Yuan, the premier is of course on the front line. But as a popularly elected president, I must respond to all opinions and take responsibility.

I keep wondering whether the dual executive system can function well. For myself I found that if I communicate well with Premier Liu Chao-shiuan before making a decision so that there is a division of labor and everyone takes responsibility for policies, then the system functions quite well.

I might be on the phone with Premier Liu several times a day. Neither of us avoids or monopolizes a certain issue. We will separately do our jobs after consulting with each other. After I assume the chairman's post, I will have the opportunity to use the same modus operandi with the KMT legislative caucus. I won't necessarily have to take care of every single issue, but at least there might be consensus on certain topics.

Q: After you decided to participate in the election for chairman, some people criticized you, saying you want to concentrate party and government power in one hand and that you will have excessive power. What is your response to such allegations?

A: Right now in Taiwanese society, whether or not I am party chairman, everything related to the KMT, and even the pan-blue camp, is ultimately my responsibility. I have to take overall responsibility, without any excuses.

So I'm saying, I don't want to expand power. My personality is not the kind at all that likes expanding power. I'm very cautious to not exceed my bounds. But I must fulfill my responsibilities. If I let matters run their own course, it would be my party or the country that would suffer. Whether or not a problem is the fault of the Presidential Office, I need to take responsibility for it all.

At this point, I feel that I can no longer waver and watch from the sidelines as if this were someone else's business. I need to get personally involved. I can't simply remain on the outside and bang the drum for others, hoping the situation will improve.

Q: So you won't be a new strongman?

A: No I won't. I want to be a mediator-type leader. It is no longer the era of autocratic rule by a single person. I am a consensus-oriented person. That's how I define myself.

Q: Will the premier get a seat on the KMT Central Committee? And will the Central Committee take over the Executive Yuan's decision-making or leadership role?

A: In the future, leadership will still mainly lie with the Presidential Office and the Executive Yuan. It won't switch to the Central Committee.

The premier will not necessarily join the Central Committee, but some cabinet members will be present to discuss particular topics. We should bear in mind that most lawmakers are democratically elected, and they therefore better reflect the viewpoint at the grassroots level. But you can't rule a country solely based on public opinion. You still need to rely on experts. Most of the people in the Executive Yuan are technocrats.

The Central Committee does, of course, need to make decisions, but it will not make decisions on behalf of the Executive Yuan. For instance, the Executive Yuan is sending so many bills to the legislature that it is impossible to discuss all of them in the Central Committee. Only controversial bills need to be discussed. The Central Committee meets just once a week. It can't replace the Legislative Yuan and the Executive Yuan. It can only act as a bridge or platform.

Q: When serving as KMT chairman in the past, what did you want to change but failed to?

A: My goals are no corruption, a diligent government, and love for the people. We need to start with candidate nominations. Our nominations must become more presentable. The candidates need to meet certain standards and public expectations. After winning election, public office holders must not be corrupt; they must not ignore the public will. Isn't that what democracy is all about?

Given that our political party is an election machine, its ideals should be reflected in its nomination policy, because after winning an election a public office holder will become a part of the government or a popularly elected institution. Of course the party can make its influence felt, but the respective individual might not necessarily pay heed.

Therefore, first of all, we need to figure out how to nominate candidates, how the nomination process can become fairer and more just, how we can find good people. The party bears a very big responsibility in that regard.

Q: Many people have misgivings that your cross-strait policy is overly slanted toward China. What's your response?

A: Over the past year tension and confrontation in cross-strait ties have abated. But we still have a long road ahead. Crisis lurks everywhere, so we need to proceed with extreme caution. But we need to walk down that road. We don't have an alternative. This is neither surrender nor accepting a diminished status. We take a road based on the preconditions of protecting the sovereignty of the Republic of China and defending Taiwan's dignity.

My platform of no unification, no independence, and no military confrontation is supported by 80 percent of the public. No unification does not mean that we rule out the option of unification, but that we will not discuss unification within my eight years in office. Since it will be impossible to find an answer within these eight years, it does not make much sense to discuss this matter at all.

I often jokingly say that not a single country in the world has declared independence twice. We became a sovereign, independent country as early as 1912. What we really need to do is to oppose a military solution, to put cross-strait issues on hold and launch exchanges and dialogue. They (China) don't want to fight a war either.

Even though some of these methods (employed by China) seem to be a campaign for unification, of course we need to be careful, but we don't need to stand completely still just because of that. I believe that if we take a step-by-step approach, we can be successful. The opposition parties do, of course, stress opposition – they oppose whatever we do. But if you take a closer look at the nine agreements that have already been signed (between Taiwan and China), there is not a single one that says, "one country, two systems," "peaceful unification," or "one China." It's all very neutral stuff.

Q: You have pledged no unification, no independence, and no military confrontation as long as you are in office. But have you ever considered that the fast pace and high level of the exchanges might be conducive to unification in the future?

A: It depends on how you define "conducive to unification." Will the signing of a cross-strait ECFA (Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement) be conducive to unification?

Does Taiwan want unification? That decision must be made by the Taiwanese people. Of course, all the people must express their opinion. We definitely need to hold a referendum. But we have not yet come to that point. Is it necessary to call a referendum just because we sign an agreement on tariff reductions? If we hold a referendum on everything, the government will be paralyzed.

Q: Some of your critics claim that your decision-making is not transparent and that you only let an inner circle be involved. Would it be possible to establish an oversight or balancing mechanism, in particular with regard to cross-strait relations?

A: Taking as an example the Assembly and Parade Act, I was the one who eventually proposed changing the permit system into a notification system. The Executive Yuan amended the Act based on my ideas, but many were unhappy with it. So I asked them what they were unhappy about. I called a meeting at the Presidential Office inviting social activists, people involved in small-scale demonstrations. I felt if I did that I couldn't possibly be misled or isolated. I directly talked to people who would be holding small protests later on. They told me that they did not approve of the penalties we proposed. So I said we could talk about dropping these.

When I make decisions like this, I don't make them with only a small group of people that is highly homogenous. The level of homogeneity between social activists and me is not particularly high.

A lot of people in the KMT feel deep enmity toward China, including my family. But at this moment we can no longer put our personal grudges before the interests of the nation and the people. Has this year of opening toward China ultimately been good or bad for Taiwan? It's very clear, without opening up relations with China, the financial tsunami would probably have hit us even harder, and we wouldn't have been able to access their domestic market.

Q: How do you view your own place in history?

A: What I most aspire to achieve is that Taiwan will be truly able to stand up with regard to several major issues.

That our nation has dignity, that our politics are democratic, that our economy is vibrant, that our society is safe, that our culture is diverse – these are the things I hope to see. Pushing on to the finish line is something we can do. Believe me, we can do it.

(Compiled by Peng Yu-rong)

Translated from the Chinese by Susanne Ganz