This year could be called the Year of Asian Democracy. It is difficult to keep up with all the elections in East and Southeast Asia: the presidential election in Taiwan, the parliamentary elections in Malaysia in March, parliamentary elections in South Korea and Indonesia last month, the elections to Japan's upper house in July, and the presidential elections in the Philippines on Monday and Indonesia in July. Although the economic and educational standards of most of these countries fall behind those of Taiwan, Taiwan has, through the behavior of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜), provided one of the worst examples of democracy in Asia.
The two have acted arbitrarily and irresponsibly for the sake of personal benefit, and they can only be described as villains of Asian democracy.
First, their behavior has had a great influence on China. People in China working hard for the country's democratization have all along used Taiwan as a reference. However, Lien and Soong have disregarded Taiwan's tradition of letting the ballot decide the winner, and, without a shred of proof of the election having been rigged, mobilized the public for illegal protests. This has had a great impact on the Chinese people's confidence in democracy, and made them see democracy as a source of chaos.
The democratization of China would further peace and stability in Asia, but Lien and Soong's behavior has clearly damaged its development.
Second, demands in Hong Kong for the direct election of their chief executive and democratization have been dealt a blow thanks to Lien and Soong.
The past two months have shown that we still have a long way to go before achieving true democracy, and it has made it impossible for democracy in Taiwan to serve as a beacon for those in Hong Kong and China. It has also given Beijing an excuse to block liberalization in Hong Kong.
Lien and Soong have also disregarded the capability of the democratic mechanism to resolve disputes, instead relying on extralegal means to threaten the president and bring unsubstantiated complaints to the international press. This has created an image of Taiwan as incapable of democratic self-management and in need of foreign assistance to maintain social stability.
Because the pan-blue leaders have been bringing their complaints directly to the international community, they have caused the US role to become highly politicized. Not only that -- the outside world's questioning of Washington's involvement in Taiwan's domestic affairs has offered Beijing an opportunity to interfere in the workings of Taiwan's democracy, with China's Taiwan Affairs Office issuing strongly worded statements on the election.
Taiwan's democracy no longer shines brightly in the eyes of the international community, and the country's international image has been ruined.
Although most governments have given in to pressure from China to different degrees, public opinion in these countries is still supportive of Taiwan's democratic achievements. Public pressure has often led to other parliaments supporting Taiwan.
Refusing to concede defeat, Lien and Soong have used irregular means to challenge the election -- a judicial ballot recount, making statements to the international media about vote-rigging and suggesting the March 19 assassination attempt on President Chen Shui-bian (
The international community is largely unaware of the true situation and unable to verify these statements. Some friends of Taiwan, unwilling and unable to gain a deeper understanding, have come to the mistaken conclusion that the statements are true.
Understanding that elections are about counting heads and not about breaking them allows for the peaceful transfer of power without the need for military force to decide the winner. This wisdom is the result of thousands of years of political development.
Because the result of the presidential election did not suit the taste of Lien and Soong, however, they have resorted to savagery in order to destroy this wisdom. Lacking support from a majority of the public, and with the international media not buying their explanations, their strategy of using the international community to reach their goals has failed.
Yet the March 26 attack on Central Election Commission offices and the violent scenes in front of the Presidential Office on April 10 received widespread international coverage, which lead to global disappointment with Taiwan, a nation that calls itself a democratic model. For Taiwan, the broken glass outside the commission is symbolic of the country's broken dream of democracy.
Holmes Liao is an adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Translated by Perry Svensson
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS