IF I were Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌), I would know that the biggest obstacles on my way to the top spot are President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), not Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his party. I would make an in-depth review of the ultimate meaning of the public's support for the DPP regime, and I would seriously consider what exactly the DPP's name represents for the people of Taiwan.
If I were Su, I would position myself as a "counterbalance" to Chen, rather than his subordinate. With the Presidential Office severely battered by corruption scandals, I would demonstrate my daring and resolution by turning the Cabinet into the cleanest government agency and placing it beyond manipulation by anyone. I would appoint a fearless minister without portfolio to take responsibility for anti-corruption reforms. I would build a report and disciplinary system to counteract corruption among government officials, demanding that every Cabinet agency root out the practice of red envelopes and behavior such as bribery and exchanges of interests. Were such behavior to be encountered, it would be thoroughly investigated.
If I were Su, I would know that the bureaucratic system as a whole has lost its central ideal, and that the gigantic government machine has become a mechanism for personal gain rather than for serving the public. Rebuilding the integrity and core values of the system does not require Chen's approval or negotiations with the opposition, it only takes determination, resolution and solutions.
If I were Su, I would pay attention to the class problem in political parties. Classes are a kind of social structure. Whether people talk about them or not does not change the fact that they exist. If I were Su, I would know that no party can represent both capitalism and the working classes at the same time.
I would redistribute social wealth through tax reform and concrete measures from the Council of Labor Affairs, vowing to the public that the DPP during my term would refuse to lean toward or pledge its loyalty to big business and that from now on, the DPP would be transformed into a party that represents workers, farmers and the general public. The era that emphasized ethnic origin must make way for class politics. If political development must be decided by categorization of people into different groups, then the DPP must replace the concept of "origin" with the concept of "distribution."
If I were Su, I would get rid of the Taishan (泰山) and Gangshan (岡山) toll collection stations first to give residents in Taipei and Kaohsiung a good reason to vote for the DPP in the year-end mayoral and city councilor elections. In fact, all the toll stations on the Sun Yat-sen Freeway, which opened to traffic in 1978, should have already passed into history according to promises of the former KMT regime. However, during the six years of DPP rule, the entire system has remained in place, even becoming a channel for collusion between the government and business. If I were Su, I would know that such problems cannot be resolved by appointing a new minister of transportation and communications.
As people's incomes constantly shrink because of the economic downturn and with the Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) system having descended into farce, I would meet the promises that the former KMT regime failed to fulfill and turn the freeway into a real "free way" for the people, not a channel for government-business collusion.
If I were Su, I would continue to insist on revising Chen's policies and bravely face up to China's economic might. I would pay special attention to the human rights movement in China, and make every effort to provide timely and necessary assistance to assist China's democratization. If I were Su, I would know that there can never be hope for peaceful resolution of the conflict between a democratic Taiwan and a despotic China. In other words, I would make Taiwan a strong supporter of the Chinese democracy and human rights movement.
More importantly, if I were Su, I would come up with a new pro-localization discourse. This discourse would be different from Chen's "love Taiwan" slogan which he brings out as a shield whenever he faces a crisis. It would be a discourse on the methods and values the Taiwanese people need to take care of themselves. It would be a discourse integrating what Taiwan was in the past, what it has presently and what we want the Taiwanese people to be like in the future. If I were Su, I would know that opening the economy and national borders is fine, but that the issue of what it means to be Taiwanese cannot be opened up for discussion with the Chinese regime.
In a word, if I were Su, I would define myself as a political leader who could change Taiwan, instead of being a premier who only tries to avoid making any mistakes so that he can finish his term safely. I would know that Chen's failure is my opportunity. Government reform, returning wealth to the public, dealing with China and wealth redistribution according to the redefinition of localization -- if Su can accomplish all these tasks, which Chen has failed to accomplish during his term, I believe that historians in the future would give him a fair evaluation.
Yao Jen-to is an assistant professor in the Graduate Institute of Sociology at National Tsing Hua University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers