According to the spirit of democratic politics, a government's rule and policies must receive the people's stamp of approval. This approval is normally provided through elections.
It is true that the democratic electoral procedure bestows legitimacy on a government's rule, but for every positive, there is a negative -- to receive the support of a majority of the public, political parties and politicians often have to fawn on anyone who is a potential supporter.
Unless we're talking about a government with exceptionally strong resistance to pressure and one that is particularly idealistic, a policy running counter to the interests of these supporters will often be recalled if it is met with objections while still in the planning stages, even if it should meet requirements for social justice and legal procedures and embody the spirit of reform.
All reform fervor and idealism becomes all bark with little bite, and may even be transformed into a "beautiful mistake" merely leading to a lot of empty joy among a population expecting reform.
This tendency to try to create policies that appeal to everyone becomes more obvious the closer we get to an election. In other words, as we get closer to an election, questions of right or wrong, fact or fiction, get less room in politics, and the only concern is the question of how many votes will be won.
If there aren't enough votes, it doesn't matter how good the reforms are or how good the policy implementation, they will be temporarily put aside or quickly changed until the elections are over.
In fact, it isn't only a matter of not being able to do the things that are right or correct. No one, whether from the opposition or the government, is willing to oppose even a policy that may spell disaster for national finances, since this would be tantamount to supporting a lost cause, annoying the public and committing political suicide.
Some people therefore say that politicians in general care only about winning or losing elections and achieving power, fame and wealth, while true statesmen care about their place in history and have a sense of mission which makes them feel that they have a responsibility towards country, society and people.
Looking at it from this perspective, the blue opposition camp must oppose President Chen Shui-bian (
However, since the government itself claims that the KMT's 50-year-rule is a millstone around their neck, the Chen government, which is charged with the great undertaking of ruling the country, should implement quick and decisive reforms so as not to let down public expectations following the transfer of political power in March 2000.
However, we have found that the closer we get to next year's presidential election, both government and opposition become more extreme, be it consciously or unconsciously. They fight each other viciously, treating people's interests as chips in their political poker game.
In addition to politicians' wars of words, their various political actions and campaign promises are simply meant to curry favor with voters, while rational, objective discussion and determination to carry out these proposed policies are lacking.
Take the opposition parties as an example. Not only have they failed to propose any constructive suggestions on how to deal with various natural disasters and corruption cases, but they have also politicized many issues, blaming every mistake on Chen's administration and making government administration even more difficult.
More seriously, in order to win the upcoming election, the pan-blue camp has ignored the government's financial difficulties and launched a drive to gain more than 1 million signatures protesting the "three highs" -- high college tuition fees, the hikes in national health insurance premiums, and the high unemployment rate. They have turned major public affairs that should be discussed in the Legislative Yuan into street protests and campaign activities.
In fact, the policy of high college tuition fees was formed by the former KMT government. The DPP has not implemented any major increases in college tuition fees since it came to power. If blame is to be assigned, the KMT should turn its gaze on itself, since the KMT introduced the policy. Furthermore, when comparing Taiwan's tuition fees to fees in Europe and the US, it is questionable if fees in Taiwan could be considered high.
When it comes to the health-insurance premium hikes, they were implemented in response to the financial difficulties of the National Health Insurance (NHI) program. The policy may, of course, be flawed. But until all the problems have been resolved, the question of how to maintain the healthy operation of the NHI without raising premiums is an issue that affects the interests of all patients. Therefore, increasing income and decreasing expenditures simultaneously, while also initiating useful reforms and abolishing harmful practices, is the right way to go.
Getting to the root of the unemployment issue, the pan-blue camp's responsibility is in fact no less than that of the pan-green camp.
The KMT has always been in favor of opening direct links, the relocation of local businesses to China, cross-strait marriages, studies and various exchanges, and it is without a doubt this pro-China trend that has undermined the island's industries and caused the capital outflows and the high unemployment rate.
By promoting the deregulation of cross-strait exchanges while at the same time launching an anti-unemployment signature drive, the pan-blue camp can be suspected of misleading the public and trying to pass the buck.
No doubt the opposition parties are immature, but neither can the DPP expect a better rating of its governing performance over the past three years. During its early days in power, the DPP indeed went through a process of learning, groping about and negotiating. This year, the nation's economy has been slowly recovering, a sign indicating that the hardships are over and that better times are ahead.
However, with the presidential election drawing near, the government is more eager to attract votes and as a result, it is gradually losing its ideals and its ability to resist pressure.
Although the government still is able to persist in its "Taiwan first" ideology and localization, as well as the belief in "one country on either side" of the Taiwan Strait, many reforms that should have been initiated were either retracted at the last minute or stillborn.
Especially when demonstrations were organized to oppose the reforms and pro-unification media tagged along by kicking up a fuss, the government most of the time ended up making policy U-turns and negotiating with opponents to wind up matters.
The seriousness of this kind of "election syndrome" can be observed in the government's recent move to deal with idle university residences, dormitories and properties, which has triggered a backlash from some retired National Taiwan University professors.
The idle state-owned housing and land have been either occupied or left completely unattended. Not only is it a fact that these national assets have not been put to their best use to produce benefits, but they have also become blind spots in public safety and sanitation, as well as dark and desolate corners that have contributed to an abnormal city landscape.
This is not unique to university campuses.
A capable government should have adopted active actions to manage these idle state-owned properties. How can it succumb to the opposition of a minority?
Democracy is the nation's most valuable asset. But the practice of currying favor with the public to secure electoral victory and not daring insist on ideals in an attempt at pleasing the public are the worst weaknesses in democratic development.
We expect both the government and the opposition to discard their temporary electoral interests, and put "Taiwan first" both when it comes to national status and recognition and policy behavior and political views, and pursue the happiness of the 23 million Taiwanese. This is where Taiwan's hope lies.
Translated by Jackie Lin, Eddy Chang and Perry Svensson
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