The media have recently been attempting to tell the public that the government has become so incompetent and corrupt that the nation's economic growth rate has plunged to an unprecedented low. This message has made the governing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) look like it is riddled with scandal and as if its glory days have come to an end.
Has the DPP become such a terrible party? Has the party actually lost its founding spirit, or is the public expecting too much of it? If the DPP hasn't failed us, why would so many people have such a negative opinion of it? Is it because we are being misled by what we see, or are we in fact witnessing how power is corrupting politicians?
Let us compare the international community's take on Taiwan with the local media's view.
According to the latest annual report by Freedom House, an organization that rates freedom from country to country, after the transfer of power in 2000, the measure of civil liberties in Taiwan was rated equal to that of other democratic nations such as Britain, France and Germany.
Second, according to the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report 2005-2006, Taiwan ranked first in Asia in both the growth competitiveness index and the technology index. Compared with the rest of the world, Taiwan still ranked fourth and third in these two indices. Taiwan even ranked 26th out of 117 countries in the public institutions index, a category in which Taiwan has ordinarily lagged behind.
In May, Business Week magazine ran a cover story entitled "Why Taiwan Matters," with a subhead that read, "The global economy couldn't function without it." This pointed to the vital role the nation has been playing in a globalized world.
While the international media tends to think highly of Taiwan, the nation's media outlets prefer an endless stream of sensational headlines and coverage of political bickering. There is perhaps cause to say that the media is responsible for the degree of political confrontation.
In cultural studies, politics is not about parties clashing with one another to seize power, but a process in which parties contend for cultural hegemony. The struggle is not confined to the field defined by political science, but extends to a wide range of social discourses.
In the early days, when the DPP was debating the direction it should take, a "Scissors Theory" called for various expression of social activism but said that the party should act in unison at election time. After five years in government, however, the DPP has realized that what it needs is a specific cultural discourse to back up its reform drive.
It is the lack of a clear cultural discourse that led the DPP to shoulder all the "debts to society" incurred by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) when it took power in 2000. How ironic it is that those pan-blues who used to enjoy a great deal of privilege have now cast themselves as "upholders" of democracy and justice.
While growing in strength in the international arena, China has been making every effort to belittle Taiwan. Some Taiwanese also denigrate their own nation, gradually depriving this country of its political identity. The constant repetition of terminology undermining Taiwanese identity can only have a harmful effect.
One Russian political commentator has suggested that the disintegration of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with its military and economic failure, but was because the "cultural core" of Russian society came under attack, calling into question the legitimacy of Soviet rule. Once this was substantially undermined, the dissolution of the Soviet Empire became inevitable.
This hypothesis can serve as a reminder for Taiwanese that no matter whether the nation pursues unification or independence, the lack of a cultural discourse will only chip away at the nation's political consciousness and deprive Taiwanese of their rights.
The DPP must therefore seek a new strategy if it wants to gain the upper hand in its dealings with the pan-blue camp and the Chinese Communist Party.
Huang Ter-yuan is a doctoral candidate in the Sun Yat-sen Graduate Institute of Social Sciences and Humanities at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY DANIEL CHENG
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
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry