The sit-in organized by former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Shih Ming-teh (施明德) calling on President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) to stand down has resulted in another wave of social cleavage and partisan wrestling.
Shih has cast a political shadow over Chen's already-fragile leadership, especially in light of the pan-blue camp's attempt to recall the president.
Chen's failure to uphold higher moral standards and enforce stricter discipline among his family and staff has disappointed a lot of DPP supporters. However, Shih's claim to "seek revolutionary means to oust Chen" is inappropriate in a democratic system.
Taiwan's imperfect democratic institutions provide legitimate channels for the public to recall or impeach a president. But the Constitution also serves as an important safety mechanism for maintaining political stability when movements to oust officials are launched.
The public is smart enough to settle for a president's declining popularity and loss of influence before an election. The public is also confident enough in its country to respect constitutional rules and avoid unconstitutional measures in bringing about a change in government.
In this regard, the public has sent a clear message to political leaders that political stability and economic order are what concern them the most. Conflict between the governing and opposition parties should be brought to an end.
We should take seriously the public's craving for stability and respect judicial procedures in unveiling the truth. If evidence shows that Chen was personally responsible for illegal activity, he should bear the political and moral responsibility and resign.
Yet Chen's resignation would not solve any of the structural problems with government. Indeed, it could trigger an even more severe political crisis. The pan-blue alliance would obstruct Chen's successor and exploit the transfer of power.
Can Taiwan afford a prolonged crisis lasting until 2008? Can Shih guarantee -- as he has claimed -- that the ruling and opposition parties will engage in a rational dialogue if Chen resigns?
As a country struggling to deepen its democracy, Taiwan yearns for more discipline, institutionalization and order in all phases of its national life.
Upset with endless finger-pointing, a sense of political unrest and instability, the manipulation of ethnicity and a the DPP's apparent trend toward political decay and corruption, voters are looking for national reconciliation, a strong leadership that can enhance an institutionalized system of politics, a truly independent judiciary and relatively clean politics.
The experiences of the "third-wave democracies" of Asia, Africa and Latin America illustrate the essential need for political authority in a changing society to develop disciplined and effective institutions that can cope with rapid social change and prevent cronyism. If Taiwanese society suffers a decline in the political order and loses trust in the constitutional system, the result will be an undermining of political leadership and an erosion of government legitimacy.
The nature and structure of political institutions determine whether democratic progress can be made and whether cronyism and corruption can be rooted out.
Taiwan has been fortunate to avoid disorder such as military coups, violent protests and the resurrection of authoritarian regimes. Still, the tendency toward corrupt politics under DPP rule reminds us of the path that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) walked in the past.
The question that we face is whether Taiwan will follow this path to political decay or whether we have the determination to strengthen our institutions.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
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
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with