A central element of the transformation from traditional autocracy to modern democratic politics is the development from rule by man to the rule of law, from depending on personal connections to relying on systems or mechanisms to carry out governmental matters. In a democracy, one should not overly demand power or take personal feelings very seriously because the power gained through democratic procedures is not absolute and can easily be lost. Such limited power is not worth too many personal grudges. The saying "Don't take it personally" has a profound significance for personal connections in democratic politics.
My friends have frequently asked me why former DPP chairmen Hsu Hsin-liang (許信良) and Shih Ming-te (施明德) oppose President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and why KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) has turned against former president, Lee Teng-hui (李登輝).
As pioneers of Taiwan's democracy movement, Hsu and Shih have paid very heavily for and made outstanding contributions to the democracy movement. The DPP, which they helped to create, has successfully turned Taiwan into a democracy. But they broke decisively with Chen at around the time the DPP formed its first administration. Not content with merely cutting ties with the DPP, they have joined forces with the pan-blue camp, happily working hand-in-hand with the KMT -- which used to persecute them brutally -- and its former secretary-general, James Soong (
Clearly aware that he had no chance of winning, Hsu still insisted on entering the 2000 presidential race and then, after he lost, lashed out at Chen. Similarly, Shih is also set to run against his "good friend," Kaohsiung City Mayor Frank Hsieh (
Hsu and Shih complain that Chen and the DPP have lost the radicalism and democratic ideals they used to espouse and have become corrupted by power. They also claim that the government is incapable of reform and that its policies are flawed, especially, its China policy. They cannot put up with all this, so they stand up as opponents of Chen. Sometimes they speak with such severity and passion that they shed tears as they do so.
But Chen has adopted the "new middle way," in which his party's pro-Taiwan independence platform has been watered down. There is simply no justification for Hsu's and Shih's opposition to him in terms of policy direction and ideology. Opposing Chen on such issues and uniting with the pan-blue camp only demonstrates the flippant and extreme nature of their political fickleness.
It is in fact beyond comprehension. Who can clearly explain the giant leap Hsu and Shih have taken from the pro-independence DPP to the pro-unification pan-blue camp? Perhaps only by considering traditional human nature and personal grudges can we catch a glimpse of the logic.
From an ethical perspective, since Hsu and Shih are elders from the tangwai (黨外, outside the party) movement and former DPP insiders, Chen should not disobey or disrespect them. With that moral code in mind, the DPP finds it hard to accept the personal grudges borne by its former comrades. Opposing Chen has become a compulsion for them and they have no qualms about joining hands with former enemies.
Lien recently condemned Lee, washing his dirty linen in public for political gain. This emotional behavior of Lien's also arose because the power of personal grudges overwhelmed the democratic rationalism of the traditional rule-by-man culture.
What Lien, Hsu and Shih lack is the democratic spirit. They are unable to view Chen's rise and the expansion of his influence with equanimity, as democracy and as the rule of law requires them to. They fail to appreciate that democratic politics is not like personal grudges, which, in their view, deserve serious treatment. Chen may step down after two years and must say goodbye after six. Such limited democratic power is not worth the kind of brutal competition that turns comrades and friends into implacable foes.
Shih, Hsu and former DPP chairman Lin I-hsiung (
Chiou Chwei-liang is a visiting professor at the Graduate Institute of Southeast Asian Studies at Tamkang University.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with