Shocking ignorance
I can't believe that someone at the Academia Sinica would state: "It is definitely related to the economic situation because democracy is indeed less effective than authoritarian politics when it comes to bringing wealth and stability" (Taiwan's democracy is now at a cross-roads, July 1, page 8).
The level of ignorance of the so-called political scientists in Taiwan simply shocks me. It's akin to PFP Chairman James Soong screaming a constitutional crisis every time the president sneezes.
First, it is well accepted that democratic institutions tend to foster and develop the economy more than authoritarian regimes. One need only look at North Korea and Cuba's closed societies and compare them to nominal democracies like South Korea and Singapore.
Second, the China sympathizers may point to the 8 percent economic growth that the PRC is so proud of. I respond with two arguments: you can never trust the numbers coming out of the PRC and, even assuming the numbers are correct, it's always easier to obtain large percentage returns when you start with very little.
It's a very basic concept of math, really. When you are dividing by 10, the same gain in the numerator yields a 10x return than if you are dividing by 100.
Sure, China has an 8 percent growth rate, but don't we factor in the population as well? China may have a trillion dollar economy, but they have 1.3 billion people.
Taiwan has an economy one-fourth to one-fifth the size of that of China. But we have one-sixtieth of the people. Not too shabby, and certainly not a reason to worship China.
For those of you envious of China's growth, I ask you when was the last time you saw a developed economy expand 8 percent? Not very recently. Even in its heyday four to five years ago, the US economy grew at less than 8 percent.
So the proper argument isn't that we look across the Taiwan Strait and see a Chinese economy growing at 8 percent; and therefore we should question our democratic institution to the point of scrapping it for an authoritarian one. The proper argument should be how do we reform our democracy to make it even more transparent and competitive?
What the research failed to note, and it's a glaring error, is that authoritarian regimes tend to be rampant with waste and corruption, precisely because power is concentrated in the hands of a few.
That's really a glaring omission, something I'd expect from someone like Soong, not an Academia Sinica researcher.
Ryan J. Shih
Stanford, California
Lien's sinister flip-flops
Only days before, KMT Chair-man Lien Chan (連戰) was saying an "independent referendum will bring disaster to Taiwan" (`Pan-blue support is `insin-cere,' June 30, page 2.) Now the pan-blue alliance is pushing for it, just so they can blame DPP for the resulting "disaster."
Lien seems to have forgotten already, if a "disaster" does come to Taiwan, what election would be left to be won? A special administrator? What kind of presidential candidate, would allow or push for disaster for his nation, just to blame his opponent in order to win the election?
His flip-flop can not be characterized as anything but sinister.
The DPP is consistent in this matter. Taiwan is a sovereign state, dependent on no one but itself. A-bian (阿扁) goes further. He says Taiwan is not the province of any nation, nor a state of the US. Therefore, no independence referendum is necessary. The referendum, instead, should be on the name of the nation.
The DPP and TSU should point out two aspects to the name question -- the legality of the name and that the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 makes the KMT's and Republic of China's occupation of Taiwan illegal.
The only name that would be legal is the one chosen by Taiwanese through peaceful means, such as a referendum.
In all practicality, Taiwanese should choose whether they want the nation's name to represent Taiwan only, in a name such as "Republic of Taiwan", or simply "Taiwan," or whether they want to represent the whole population of China and just keep the name "Republic of China."
International recognition, including that of the US, de-pends on a name that is a true reflection of reality, and has nothing to do with challenging the PRC government's legitimacy in ruling China.
Chen Ming-Chung
Chicago, Illinois
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing