The presidential election and referendum have finished, and the Central Election Commission has proclaimed President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) as the win-ners. Unfortunately, the referendum did not succeed since the two questions failed to achieve the 50 percent vote required. The tiny margin by which the election was won prompted Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chair-man Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) to refuse to concede, calling for an immediate recount and the annulment of the election.
Governments around the world have already offered their congratulations, and this is to be seen as a victory for democracy. However, because a number of losers are refusing to play by the rules, a blow has been struck against Taiwanese democracy. These politicians have continued to protest, inciting social unrest and causing the stock market to fall. One wonders what the pan-blue supporters in the business world are thinking, having witnessed this turn of events.
With an eye on the year-end legislative elections, some pan-blue legislators have not only failed to encourage their supporters to be reasonable, but they have actively encouraged them to do decidedly unreasonable acts.
The road to democracy has not been an easy one, and through the actions of a few individuals over the last few days Taiwan's good name in the international community has been compromised. The legal authorities have already had the ballot boxes sealed and promised to promptly deal with Lien's and Soong's demands. Now that the furore surrounding the election is being dealt with through legal channels, the pan-blue politicians should desist from their current course, call off the protests and allow society to get back to normal.
The media has also come out of this election tarnished. We have seen huge disparities between the pre-election surveys and the exit polls conducted by a number of newspapers and TV stations and the actual outcome. These media have now lost all credibility. Furthermore, many commentators and media personalities overlooked the fact that a great number of people refused to participate in pre-election polls. In the end there appeared to be little relationship between the results of these polls and the final count. Why did so many people refuse to participate? Was it perhaps that the readers and viewers saw the surveys as fundamentally biased towards certain political parties, and therefore refused to take part in them?
The aftermath of the election will see a change in the political landscape. Lien will have to step down as KMT chairman to make way for new blood. If the KMT wishes to be a viable force four years from now, its leaders will have to cease turning their back on mainstream public opinion and recognize Taiwan. Failure to do so will result in a split between the various factions within the party. It is unlikely that the KMT and the PFP will join forces in the year-end legislative elections: their competitive spirit will surely smother their desire to co-operate.
Beijing may well have been disappointed by the news of another term for Chen, but the situation should nevertheless have a stabilizing and positive influence on Sino-Taiwanese relations. They will be reluctant to wait another four years for a possible handover of power, opting instead for dialogue with the powers-that-be, and no longer expect the president to accept the "one China" principle. It is hoped that the international community will take the mainstream will of the Taiwanese people seriously, recognize the fact that 60 percent of the people identify themselves as Taiwanese and want to be the masters of Taiwan, and amend their current "one China" policy.
Parris Chang is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS