The opposition pan-blue camp has called for an electoral recount and an investigation of the March 19 shooting incident, demands to which President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) administration and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) have responded with the utmost sincerity and substantive action. But it appears that no amount of goodwill and effort will appease the bitter feelings of the losers, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜).
Given that Lien and Soong were upholders of this country's authoritarian past, it is not surprising that they are unwilling to accept the results of a fairly contested election. Chen's re-election dashed their hopes of returning to power and proved that the democratic reforms promoted by the DPP are here to stay.
Nevertheless, since we of the pan-green camp recognize that this election was indeed an extremely tight race, we have fully respected their right to a legal recount and have further agreed to statutory revisions for an administrative recount.
A comprehensive and transparent investigation of the shooting is under way, and the DPP has already met the opposition's de-mand that foreign forensic experts participate in this investigation. That such an act of violence occurred on the election's eve was a terrible shock and a day of sadness for the nation, for we had prided ourselves on the peaceful nature of Taiwan's democratic tran-sition. More than anyone else, the president is eager to find out the truth behind the attempted assassination.
Yet because Lien refuses to accept his defeat, what could have been a further step in Taiwan's democratic consolidation has turned out to be its biggest test.
A strong democracy requires that the general population possess a basic confidence in government institutions' legitimacy and soundness. Even though his claims completely lack evidence, Lien appears determined to undermine both the election's legitimacy and trust in the government. During one of modern history's longest periods of martial law it was Lien's KMT that fostered a sense of distrust in government among the Taiwanese people. Ironically, with the help of melodrama, hearsay and mass media, Lien is now able to capitalize on these lingering sentiments.
The KMT is known for its history of human rights violations and authoritarian rule, whereas the DPP has been at the forefront of Taiwan's democratic movement. When we were Taiwan's only opposition party, we fought in numerous unfair elections rigged by the KMT. To accuse us of election fraud is a grave insult to those who have dedicated their lives to and even sacrificed their lives for democracy.
Democracy also requires mature political leaders and parties. As the vote was tallied on the evening of March 20, Lien chose to incite crowds with a fiery, bitter speech. Meanwhile, the president expressed his highest respect for Lien, and urged supporters to cast aside political differences and embrace the pan-blue camp. While the blue camp organized mass protests and stormed government buildings, the DPP urged supporters to exercise restraint and strictly forbade local party branches from organizing any confrontational activities. On the weekend of April 10, as the pan-blue camp continued with demonstrations that ended in violence, DPP delegates met to reform our party mechanisms for nominating candidates.
It is obvious which side is committed to Taiwan's stability and ongoing democratization, and which side is merely seeking political gain at the expense of social order.
Democracy -- particularly in Taiwan's case -- requires support from the international community. China has regarded any act of democratic consolidation, from our first parliamentary election to the presidential election and recent referenda, as a move toward independence deserving political and even military suppression. Such threats to our very survival and the discrediting of democracy are not only unjust but also harmful to Asia-Pacific stability.
If one hopes for China's rapid political liberalization, then Taiwan's democracy must be allowed to flourish. Taiwan's experience has proven that democracy can be compatible with so-called Asian values, and our close cultural and economic ties with China can play a strategic liberalizing influence. It is unfortunate that the post-election controversy generated by the blue camp has been manipulated by China in an attempt to belittle Hong Kong's democratic move-ment. We must not allow the blue camp's actions to continue to harm Taiwan's international image.
It is with sadness that we have witnessed the blue camp's demon-strations turn violent. We are appalled that Lien still refuses to take responsibility for events spinning out of control, and still blames Chen and the DPP.
Recent events represent a surge of reactionary forces against the ongoing consolidation of democracy. Despite these challenges, we have faith in this country's people and democratic institutions. Having won over half of the votes, the president is in a position of strength. Polls also indicate that the public disapproves of the blue camp's actions.
As we weather this storm, we are confident that Taiwan's democracy will emerge stronger than ever before.
Hsiao Bi-khim is a legislatior and director of international affairs for the Democratic Progressive Party.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
International debate on Taiwan is obsessed with “invasion countdowns,” framing the cross-strait crisis as a matter of military timetables and political opportunity. However, the seismic political tremors surrounding Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairman Zhang Youxia (張又俠) suggested that Washington and Taipei are watching the wrong clock. Beijing is constrained not by a lack of capability, but by an acute fear of regime-threatening military failure. The reported sidelining of Zhang — a combat veteran in a largely unbloodied force and long-time loyalist of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — followed a year of purges within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
RSS