Successful democratic politics depends on there being a sound two-party or multi-party system, in which the party or parties that lose an election form a loyal opposition. The loyal opposition provides checks and balances against the ruling party. It awaits its chance to return to power in the next election. It is loyal to the country's interests, which its places above the interests of parties or individuals. It supports good policies offered by the ruling party and opposes bad ones. These are the ABCs of democratic politics.
Following this simple logic, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
It was in accordance with the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election and Recall Law (
Unfortunately, Lien and Soong have chosen to turn their backs on the ABCs of democracy. After the election they launched an illegal mass movement, claiming that the presidential election had been unfair. They incited their supporters with hateful anti-Chen language, thus turning demonstrations violent. What they said and did was undemocratic and irrational -- not what leaders of a loyal opposition would have opted for.
Over the past month, forensic scientist Henry Lee's investigation has proved that the shooting that occurred on the eve of the election was neither fake nor staged. At the same time, the recount has started, and the annulment lawsuit has also been working its way through the legal system. Therefore, it is time for the opposition leaders to become calm, control their anger, recover their rationality and engage in some soul-searching.
Voices from within the KMT are calling for reforms, a new generation of leadership and the resignation of Lien and other party leaders, as well as an increase in democracy and new discourse within the party. Everyone in Taiwan has heard these appeals; only Lien and his henchmen don't seem to hear them.
KMT Vice Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), in an unusual move, said to Lien at a Central Standing Committee meeting recently that "the public looks for strong leadership and clear direction." He suggested that Lien take the initiative, before the inauguration, in explaining how the party would continue its partnership with other parties and how it would react to the results of the recount -- whether or not the result of the election were overturned.
Ma even said that "it is more important to tell our supporters where we're heading next than it is to organize mass demonstrations on May 20." In response to Ma's comments, Lien said: "What effect would a speech have? The problem lies with Chen, for not responding, not with us."
He carried on by saying that the KMT had asked its supporters not to congregate during the inauguration, yet asked: "Will the crowds listen to us?" Directing his comments to Chen, he said: "What are you afraid of? Are you going to keep hiding behind barricades, barbed wire and bulletproof glass after May 20?"
KMT Vice Chairman Wang Jin-pyng (
While many committee members have told the media that today is not a good day for the KMT-PFP to organize any activities, it was Lien who set the tone at the meeting: "Don't ask what the KMT-PFP alliance will do on May 20 -- ask what Chen Shui-bian has done before May 20." Lien did not seem to have heard or understood the useful suggestions that others had made.
A few days ago, KMT Taipei City Councilor Chen Chin-hsiang (陳錦祥) demanded that the KMT leadership take responsibility for the party's loss in the election by resigning. Those he held responsible included Lien, six vice chairmen, Secretary-General Lin Fong-cheng (林豐正) and others. Lien and Lin ignored his request, saying that "the election is not finished yet." Ma and Wang showed timidity when they said they would wait until after the legislative elections to make any decisions.
Ma, unfortunately, does not appear to be a leader of the loyal opposition any more than Lien is. His recent article to commemorate the May 4th Movement was full of biased criticism of Chen. Though Ma lauded democracy, he came across as lacking the willingness to actually embrace democracy that a leader of the loyal opposition ought to display.
He began his article by saying that during the campaign we had witnessed unprecedented social unease, and confrontations among ethnic groups. He compared Chen to the Nazis and Bolsheviks, saying that the ruling party had "repeatedly told people that holding referendums and writing a new constitution are universal human rights and a means of supporting democracy and loving Taiwan." By so doing, Ma argued, Chen had bestowed a halo of unassailable virtue on those ideas and had established a political authority that no one could dare to challenge.
He wrote that the DPP had developed a new holy trinity -- promoting referendums, writing a new constitution and working toward independence -- turning those ideas into absolute virtues that would permit no questioning. Using the power created by this "new theology," Ma argued, those in power could exploit the organs of government to silence the public and to expand their own power, without limits, in the name of democracy.
Is this criticism rational and fair? Is it legitimate to compare Chen to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, former Soviet Union leader Josef Stalin, former Chinese Communist Party chairman Mao Zedong (
If Ma believes these things, he is demonstrating his narrow-mindedness, lack of understanding of democracy and a mistaken conception of what it means to be the loyal opposition.
The KMT-PFP alliance has mentioned the possibility that during the inauguration Lien and Soong could wear masks and lead their supporters in a march outside the controlled inauguration area, allegedly drawing on the example of Mahatma Gandhi. Any comparison of Lien and Soong to Gandhi must be the century's most ridiculous analogy.
Who is playing God after all -- Lien or Chen?
Soong is not the leader of a loyal opposition. Nor is Lien, nor Ma. They have too big an appetite for power and they take their own interests more seriously than those of their parties or their country. They have led the pan-blue camp down the road of self-destruction; they have pushed the nation's democracy in a dangerous direction; and they have tried to force the nation into the misery of instability and division.
Chiou Chwei-liang is a visiting professor at the Graduate Institute of Southeast Asian Studies at Tamkang University.
Translated by Jennie Shih
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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.