There is too much hatred between Taiwanese politicians, and the public is also very clear on which politicians they hate and which they like. This is very negative for the nation's overall democratic development. I hope that Taiwan's politicians, particularly those in the highest positions, will abandon this tendency toward hatred. If they could love or hate with less intensity when mobilizing the public, that would be to the benefit of democracy as well as Taiwan.
Maybe former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) is inept when it comes to managing and maintaining deeper relationships with close political allies. Maybe he was incapable of identifying with the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) political culture, or perhaps it was necessary due to political competition. Whatever the reason, des-pite Lee having had the opportunity to build deep and close relationships with many top KMT leaders it in the end all came to naught, making them deadly enemies instead .
Lee and James Soong (宋楚瑜) were said to be as close as father and son, but in the end they became estranged and even grew to hate each other. Lee and Lien Chan (連戰) were even closer. I don't know why Lee did all he could to promote Lien as soon as Lee took over the presidency, but the two became so close that they even set up a foundation bearing both their names, and in the end Lee's support of Lien led to a split between Lien and Soong.
In the blink of an eye, however, there was a clean break in the relationship between Lee and Lien, who failed to win the presidency. In addition, the open-hearted relationship between Lee and former premier Hau Pei-tsun (郝柏村) was filled with hypocrisy. Lee also broke off relations with Academia Sinica president Lee Yuan-tseh (李遠哲), and although circumstances are different, they no longer have any contact.
Such heartless political relationships and even the treatment of friendship as having no value is the most negative example of social relationships in Taiwan. Even worse, such nasty political relationships and hostility have become the main factors behind the unstable political situation.
Once hate relationships have formed among top leaders, each of these leaders finds public support. Parts of the public do all they can to support a certain politician, while they are filled with hate for his or her enemies among the other top leaders. Some enthusiastically support Lee and President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and are filled with hate for Lien and Soong, or vice versa, just as they once swore loyalty unto death to the Chiang family.
These strong emotions, clearly a vestige of past authoritarian politics, have a negative impact on the development of democracy, and they promote political opposition and maybe even polarization. As a Chinese saying goes, "only the per-son who tied the bell around the tiger's neck can untie it," meaning that high political leaders should show concern for democratic and national development and eliminate these kinds of hostile, inappropriate and hateful relationships.
At the very least, they should stop abusing each other. They should be more active in ignoring past political favors and grudges, treat each other with sincerity and bring about an effective change in these inappropriate and nasty political relationships.
Chen has shown goodwill by proposing a joint group for discussing the composition of the new Cabinet, and lately it has seemed as if he intends to ask Soong to head the Committee for Cross-Strait Peace and Development. Lee has also displayed support for cooperation between the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the People First Party (PFP). This may be a good opportunity to do away with the hatred between politicians.
However, the goodwill displayed by Chen and the DPP seems to be unpredictable and is a cause for both concern and joy.
The area where opposition between the DPP and the PFP is the strongest is the issue of unification or independence. Chen's letting Soong handle cross-strait affairs does not amount to saying that the conflict over unification or independence is an empty issue for the two parties. It is for show, and will lead to even more serious conflict.
If both parties really are capable of rising above ideological conflict and instead engage in pragmatic cooperation aimed at maintaining Taiwan's independent status, they will not only break the political deadlock, but they may also eliminate the seemingly unsolvable cross-strait issue.
It may seem that ideology should be a precondition for cooperation across party lines, but as democratic party politics develop, it is becoming less important. As for the unification-independence issue, it is in fact not a matter of absolute opposition. Even if one advocates independence, one cannot push forward in a fool-hardy fashion.
But saying that one is against independence while repeatedly running for election for president or vice president -- when Taiwan is a de facto sovereign and independent state -- means that if one wins election, one will still be the president or vice president of Taiwan, and not a Hong Kong-style chief executive. On the surface of things, the difference between unification and independence doesn't seem so important any more.
Finally, the most important questions are still those regarding how Chen will regain the trust of the opposition parties, and how Soong will manifest his loyalty toward national affairs and lower his excessive ambitions. If cooperation between Chen and Soong can calm the political situation and lead to the development of a vision for Taiwan, that would be a substantive contribution to its development, and it would also bring about a change in the abnormal hatred between politicians.
Chiu Hei-yuan is a research fellow in the Institute of Sociology at Academia Sinica.
Translated by 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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath