It falls to us to put Taiwan-watchers overseas on notice about a development that will have lasting repercussions.
International media outlets do a good job of reporting on events in Taiwan, as long as there is a sexy cross-strait or business angle.
But when it comes to pedestrian issues, such as political reform, most news outlets fall short. Correspondents for international wire, print or broadcast media who approach their overseas editors with a story lacking a "China angle" have a tough fight on their hands.
This is why almost no major media outlet has reported on the cross-party compromise that was reached on Wednesday over changes to electoral districts. It doesn't sound like a compelling story.
This would only be slightly irritating if it were not for the fact that perceptions and policy are in part driven by media coverage. So when the international media simply do not bother to report on significant changes to a country's political situation, it has a deleterious effect on the international community's understanding of, and policy toward, that country.
When policymakers from, say, the US are left in the dark about basic aspects of Taiwan's society and political system, they cannot be expected to formulate meaningful policy.
Much of the think-tanking and analyzing that goes on in Washington is mere regurgitation of what is reported in major media outlets. Only a handful of specialists possesses in-depth knowledge of Taiwan. Meanwhile, most "experts" who write or comment widely on the US' foreign policy toward Taiwan, China or East Asia have only superficial knowledge of Taiwanese politics.
This is not always a serious problem. However, it becomes worrying when the one-dimensional portrait painted by the international media begins to lead policymakers toward erroneous assumptions.
An example of this is how the international media generally treats Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
Election returns over the past decade in no way support the conclusion that the KMT is going to glide to power next year. The electorate is almost evenly split between the KMT and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), and voters seem largely unperturbed when a scandal rocks their chosen party.
But with all of the fawning over Ma, a person outside of Taiwan could be forgiven for thinking that his presidency is inevitable.
Which brings us back to the development that the international media has ignored.
The changes to the legislature and electoral districts will have a profound effect on the political system. No one, not even the major political parties, is able to predict what kind of legislature the December elections will bring to power.
First, half of all sitting legislators will lose their jobs, as the legislative seats will be slashed from 225 to 113. Next, many popular and prominent figures will be left on the street, because politicians must now compete with each other for first place, rather than being guaranteed a seat by earning a high number of votes. In addition, small political parties face a fight for their survival.
Why will any of this matter outside of Taiwan? Given the changes, it is possible that a party could win a legislative super-majority, enabling it to do all kinds of things, such as write a new constitution.
Or declare independence. Even the international media would notice that.
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