The Taiwanese people and foreign dignitaries were prevented from enjoying the Double Ten National Day celebrations when Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party (PFP) legislators disrupted the event and red-clad anti-President Chen Shui-bian (
The capital seemed to descend into a state of anarchy, which posed a serious challenge to Taiwan's democracy and rule of law. Former American Institute in Taiwan chairman Nat Bellocchi called on prominent Taiwanese to step up and work to resolve the political unrest.
Political strife has been a constant during Taiwan's democratization, and it is usually stirred up by politicians. Perhaps if leaders respected by all sides could step forward, they could help Taiwan's young democracy end the political antagonism by seeking compromise and cooperation, which would be in the interest of all Taiwanese. However, upholding democracy requires more than just people; it is also dependent on systems.
In most democratic countries, the judicial branch of the government is an important instrument for resolving political conflict. As Aristotle said, the law is a way of ensuring rationality during emotionally charged times. Taiwan's political agitation is in dire need of a dose of rationality.
During the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville observed how the US, then just a budding democracy, used the law to resolve political conflicts. He said that almost all of the US' political issues sooner or later became legal issues. Like the US in its early stages, Taiwan still has plenty of work to do to strengthen its democracy.
However, political controversies in recent years -- such as the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, the 2004 presidential election, the 319 Shooting Truth Commission and the founding of the National Communications Commission -- have all been resolved through the Council of Grand Justices or a judicial ruling. This clearly demonstrates that Taiwan's democracy is heading in the same direction as the US. A just and independent judiciary safeguards the proper development of democracy.
Former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Shih Ming-teh (
External threats to judicial institutions are not the only challenge to Taiwan's democracy. The fourth estate, indispensable for maintaining and strengthening democracy, is self-destructing and losing its credibility.
Ever since the "Taiwanese Cultural Revolution" entered the mass movement stage last month, many media outlets have blatantly interfered in the political furor. News reports resemble made-up stories, "political commentator" has become synonymous with "liar" and even opinion polls are being manipulated.
The Chinese-language China Times has printed false stories about Chen retreating to his Yuanshan command post on the day of the anti-Chen protesters' siege and letting Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) lead a Cabinet reshuffle, and former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) inviting former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰), PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) and Wang to settle the situation.
A report by the United Daily News that Academia Sinica President Lee Yuan-tseh (李遠哲) was acting as an intermediary between Lee Teng-hui and Shih prompted Lee Yuan-tseh to angrily reply that, "All the media are telling lies!"
In a normal society those accused of lying are considered cheats and phonies and have the validity of their reports called into question. Many media outlets have completely lost the public's trust.
Thankfully, amid the chaos, there have been a few media outlets that have upheld their professionalism and government functions that have been carried out according to constitutional procedure and the principles of the law. The foundation for upholding Taiwan's democracy remains intact.
The majority of Taiwanese who have grown accustomed to being silent should take this opportunity to think carefully; expressing themselves through their votes in future elections is necessary to end the turmoil.
Lu Shih-hsiang is chief executive officer of the Foundation for the Advancement of Media Excellence and an adviser to the Taipei Times.
Translated by Marc Langer
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing