In reading think tank research fellow Margot Chen's (陳麗菊) article ("A three-fold path in the search for our nation," Oct. 7, page 8), my heart fills with an inexpressible sense of oppressiveness. As Chen points out, Taiwan's political stage has three combinations of policies: political and economic unification, political independence but economic unification, or political and economic independence.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), advocating the "1992 consensus" and ultimate union with China, represents both political and economic unification. Economically, the KMT proposes direct cross-strait links, investment in China, as well as a common market -- all steps toward an economic merger.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) represents political independence coupled with economic unification. Though the party does not lack grassroots proponents of economic autonomy, its main policy-makers adopt an "actively open" policy which in the last two years has been adapted to an "effectively open" policy. Regardless, the end result is a one-China market of economic unity similar to that of the KMT.
The Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) champions political and economic independence, and considers Taiwan's autonomy to be an established fact that requires only the normalizing of its official title and amendments to the Constitution. Economically, the TSU advocates investing in Taiwan and Taiwanese autonomy as opposed to further economic amalgamation.
Of the three, the policies of the KMT and the TSU are coherent, without contradictions between political and economic strategies. The DPP's views, however, are more peculiar, as the principles of Taiwanese autonomy and economic unification are diametrically opposed.
Furthermore, as China's primary cross-strait strategy is to press unification through economic advantage, the DPP's tactics are highly contentious and risky.
Of course, I do not wish to see a hardline unificationist political force come to power to undo the hard-earned democratic progress we have achieved. The battle between Taiwan and China, democratic freedom and authoritarian control hinges on next year's elections.
The problem is, if the DPP opens Taiwan to China even further after winning the election, then Taiwan's economic dependence is bound to deepen. Consequently, middle to lower class Taiwanese will follow industries abroad.
Taiwan requires a truly grassroots opposition, such as the TSU, with enough clout to champion political and economic independence and to balance, oppose and criticize the DPP's headstrong economic policies.
Had the TSU not opposed the 2002 attempt to open 12-inch-wafer plants in China, Taiwan would not possess its 13 plants, with seven more under construction.
Instead, China would be the semiconductor kingdom of the world. The same goes for the Conference on Sustaining Taiwan's Economic Development: Were it not for opposition raised by the TSU, the 40 percent cap on Chinese investment would have been relaxed, the yuan would be flooding the Taiwan market, and the TAIEX would not be enjoying its recent 9,000-point prosperity.
Experience shows that a grassroots opposition party advocating political and economic independence can truly check the DPP's Chinese inclinations and protect economically disadvantaged voters, a key element in Taiwan's political and economic development.
Huang Tien-lin is a former national policy adviser.
Translated by Angela Hong
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
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.
RSS