In the early years of the last century, a famous and well-liked humorist in the US, Will Rogers, would often start his talks on politics with the tongue-in-cheek quip "I only know what the newspapers say." This always brought a laugh. In those days, US newspapers were much like Taiwan's media is today -- known for making very interesting but unsupported allegations, with a political purpose in mind. There is one difference now in Taiwan -- nobody seems to be laughing.
Rightly or wrongly, the results often damage people's reputations, put a politician out of work or shift a fundamental policy in another direction -- none of which are laughing matters. In Taiwan, for example, there are important national issues at stake, while in the US, immigration is one that could bring a whole variety of changes to millions of citizens (and non-citizens).
But what seems to be forgotten in Taiwan is that the disagreements taking place now are driven by the media, but ultimately must be decided by the people -- as is the case in any free and open democracy. The media tends to push the sensational, while politicians emphasize what they want and skip over what they don't. The question then is how well the issues are understood by the people.
The pan-blue camp is now focusing its efforts on calling for President Chen Shui-bian (
This is a continuation of the pan-blue camp's five-year effort to undermine the government, including preventing the Control Yuan from addressing the many "black gold" issues waiting in the wings, freezing items necessary for the nation's defense and forging closer relations, as a political party, with China -- without the government's involvement.
The pan-blue camp's effort carries with it a very capable media, cultivated by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the many years of its authoritarian rule with some of the resources it obtained illicitly during that time.
In a democratic country, it is understandable for a political party to exert great effort to return to power, and to a certain extent almost anything goes. Democratic countries, however, generally establish laws and rules, or depend on tradition, to lessen fundamental harm to the country. That does not seem to be the case in Taiwan.
At the same time the DPP, from the standpoint of public acceptance, is clearly on the defensive. The media, given the stories of alleged corruption, inevitably will continue to expand coverage of events that are of great interest to readers. Such attention -- and harm to the DPP -- will probably continue, no matter what the results. In addition, the continuous stories of competition between DPP leaders seeking the candidacy in the next presidential election are also not only of great interest to the media and the people, but also support the efforts of its rival, the KMT.
In the past six years, despite some mistakes, much has been achieved in Taiwan, especially toward strengthening democracy. Much of this includes work by non-government organizations, which has often been encouraged by the government.
One important reason for this is the government's inability to pass needed legislation. The opposition's blockade of almost all matters that need such laws has been successful, and the DPP has found no way to get around it.
The DPP continued to attract more voter support until late 2004. The opposition, however, continued to hold sway over much of Taiwan's media. With the pan-blue camp leaders' trips to China, the DPP's continued inability to break the opposition's legislative blockade and the allegations of corruption in the government, the opposition's media has flourished and continues to now. With the lone exception of the "Hand in Hand" demonstration, the executive branch has been unable to gather sufficient voter strength to overcome the opposition.
Both parties differ on how best to regain power (the pan-blue camp), or retain it (the pan-greens). That has not stopped the growing tension between them. The potential for consolidation that was mulled in the past seems dead. The pan-blue camp wants to destroy Chen and the DPP; the pan-greens want to obliterate the KMT by blocking its money. The likelihood of both succeeding is not high.
The debates among the DPP and the KMT can be viewed as political party competition, masked in ideology or efforts to gain more power. But voters, especially younger ones, they are more likely to be see such maneuvers as power grabs, not the growth of democracy -- which highlights a necessity for young people to get more involved in governance.
Blocking needed legislation or challenging the integrity of elected officials is legitimate in a democracy. Political parties and lawmakers do and should bargain hard for the good of their party and constituents. But there is a limit, and law makers to such negotiations and a time for lawmakers to develop a consensus through concessions that will hurt the least for both party and legislator, but which also keep the good of the country in mind. In the past six years such patriotism has been rare. Or is it that we only know what is said or written in the media?
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under