Following their appeal for President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) to step down on July 15, a group of pan-green academics recently issued a second signature drive calling for a review of the competence of political leaders and urging the public to enrich Taiwanese identity with democratic values. They asked us all to consider the starting point for building the nation's democracy and identity.
Leaving aside the issue of whether or not the criticism is warranted, these statements reflect a predicament: Because of the national identity issue, it is difficult to expand and consolidate Taiwan's democracy. Instead, democracy has stagnated at the formal level, unable to move past the holding of elections.
Differences in national identification between pro-localization and pro-China forces have led to a battle in the areas of politics, economics and national security. The unwillingness of either side to compromise not only hurts the national interest, but also threatens to diminish the hard-won democratic achievements that have followed on from the end of the authoritarian era.
In fact, Wu Nai-teh (
First, conflicting national identities would make it impossible to discuss public policy rationally. Toeing a pro-China political line, the pan-blue camp ignores Taiwan's national defense and security needs, and wields its legislative majority to block the passage of the arms procurement budget, thereby changing the democratic principle of majority rule into "violence of the majority," and crippling Taiwan's democracy.
Second, it results in a lack of a public consensus that is indispensable to the operations of democratic governments. This becomes particularly accentuated when we are dealing with political and economic issues related to China.
At the Conference on Sustaining Taiwan's Economic Development, for example, pro-China political and business organizations ignored economic security and the needs of middle and lower-class blue-collar workers, and demanded that the government open up direct transportation links and lift the restriction blocking any firm from investing more than 40 percent of its net value in China.
In addition, the pro-China media exaggerated the urgency of direct transportation links and demanded that the government implement a policy of active opening toward China. Worse, the pro-China parties have traveled to Beijing to discuss cooperation on economic, trade and agricultural issues, completely ignoring the popularly elected government.
Third, the conflict over national identity will result in the country having two sets of political leaders, with neither group able to win the trust of the entire populace.
More Taiwanese have come to realize that they are the true masters of the nation, that Taiwan does not belong to China and that we have the right to decide our future. Therefore, we can no longer put our trust in any regime that leans toward China.
As a result of the national identity problem, consolidating democracy is more complicated in Taiwan than in most other nations. Attempts to consider other solutions for Taiwan's democracy and to decide where we should start to build a national identity should begin by putting an end to pro-China forces and those who harbor the Greater China dream. If we don't, it is certain to lead to a weaker democracy.
Margot Chen is a research fellow at Taiwan Advocates, a think tank initiated by former president Lee Teng-hui.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS