TT: The first ever referendum in Taiwan failed to meet the legal threshold of a 50 percent of turnout, rendering it invalid. Was this a failure of Taiwan's attempt to take a democratic step forward?
Edward Friedman: The referendum, which obviously by the end had no real content, was mainly a way for President Chen [Shui-bian] to invigorate his base. And I think he probably succeeded politically in doing what he wanted. So from the political point of view it was a success and part of a very successful campaign. After all a party which only had 39 percent of the vote ended up with over 50 percent of the vote. So it was an amazing gain in a very short space of time. The referendum was part of what energized the bases of the votes for Chen.
What one would also hope is that the defeat of the referendum will allow the government of Taiwan to back away from any kind of actions which Beijing would consider provocative.
The president will say that this referendum was defeated and we will really have to take serious conciliatory steps toward Beijing. And hopefully make some initiatives, which this time, please God, Beijing might even respond to.
So rather than seeing the referendum being a failure this time, politically it was a great help and could be used for good purposes that would serve the interests of people in Taiwan in the future. So I don't want to think of it as just a failure.
Daniel C. Lynch: First of all, those questions weren't the original questions that President Chen wanted to ask, so it's hard to know whether the questions were asked within Taiwan or asked what the voters might have decided. So first thing is the officiality of the questions.
Secondly, I agree with professor Friedman that this should cause President Chen to tread cautiously in thinking about using a referendum to pass a new constitution. It's not clear exactly what Taiwan's voters will think of that. Writing a new constitution is obviously a very complicated process and in this context of dangerous cross-strait relations, it is probably dangerous.
TT: What about the election results and the saga of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan not wanting to accept the election result?
Friedman: I think that for the consolidation of Taiwan's democracy, it is important that no matter how painful it is, no matter how close the election was, that the defeated candidates accept the procedure. We could all understand the emotions when you lose a fight by so little but a responsible leader caring about the future of Taiwan, I don't think should have spoken the way that he spoke. It's perfectly OK to say, "Lets make sure that the numbers are correct and it was a very close election." But to make any suggestion without any evidence at all, that the other side engaged in an attempted assassination of the president of the country to win the election -- that is shocking. And I can tell you that the people who come from around the world and from the US, that I have spoken to are all shocked, that a serious party leader in a democracy would talk that way and incite them, was very irresponsible.
Lynch: There was report this morning in the China Times that the US was delaying sending a congratulatory message to President Chen. It is important that the AIT and the White House actually not go along with this, that they will recognize the election results.
TT: You said that observers from around the world are shocked to see Lien Chan's behavior. How will Lien Chan's action affect Taiwan's image in the international arena?
Friedman: A leader of a party who is running for a head of a state is not allowed to have emotions and passions, which are all understandable, shape his public statement in that kind of situation. It is his job to inform his followers as to what are the proper democratic things to do. Taiwan had a transparent democratic election. The numbers are real. Everybody knows that the counting was absolute open and public and verified. And as much as we can understand why they would feel disappointed, the important thing for the leaders to say, is that, the results are the results we abide by. In a democracy it is the procedures which are decisive. And that's what he should say to his people.
I think this morning some people at the Presidential Office are beginning to change their rhetoric and beginning to say that we should allow legal procedures to determine the outcome.
It would have been very nice if he [Lien] had said something like that in the beginning also.
Lynch: In terms of the image of Taiwan, the predominant image everyone would have right now is that of courageous President Chen and Vice President [Annette] Lu being shot but proceeding with the election, standing up there with apparent discomfort but proceeding with the election.
I don't think you have to worry about the image of Taiwan at all.
I agree with Professor Friedman that both Lien and Soong will eventually back down once the voters cool down and let the legal procedures play out.
TT: With the election result being so close, Taiwan looks like is a very divided nation right now. How do you envision the future of Taiwan?
Friedman: The United States is very divided. Taiwan is very divided in a very different way. America is divided on the bases of deeply entrenched forces. I think Taiwan is amidst a rapid change and it just happens that at this moment the forces are evenly divided. There is every reason to think that continuing rapid change is going to go on politically in Taiwan. So I don't think that one should assume that the next time there is an election in Taiwan, even in December, they will be divided in the same exact way.
Lynch: I think obviously President Chen will have to take this division into account. And I think he will. I think the first time he was elected in 2000, he was very accommodating of a different social force, and used different approaches to deal with China and so on.
Friedman: The election has had an impact on both camps too. They are not the same two camps. I think the result of the election is that the DPP is much more open now to figuring out how they will make globalization with China work, rather than opposing it. In Taiwan, to go on with economic growth they really have to go that way.
I think for the blue camp, they much more understand that there has been a change of Taiwan's identity. And that if they are not in tune with that Taiwan identity -- you could see them changing a lot just in the last couple of months -- they can't help to be elected. So the people are changing and the society is changing, so the politicians are changing and the political parties are changing. Taiwan's political system is in a great flux, which is very ordinary in the early years of a new democracy.
Lynch: We don't know how China will react either. Will China act responsibly? Will China recognize that it was close but now that Chen is re-elected, they will have to talk with President Chen? Then I think you will see the cross-strait economic integration proceeding. I think Taiwan will reach to the future confidently and peacefully. But we really don't know how China will respond.
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS