RECENT TV COMMERCIALS by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) make me worry about Taiwan's future. How can it be OK for the KMT to use its party assets to distort facts? It professes to love Taiwan while making it look bad. Its ideology is pro-China and anti-Taiwan.
Look at their claim that the economy is so bad people can't make ends meet. China sees tens of thousands of mass uprisings a year; Taiwan does not. Using a scorched earth tactic, the pan-blue legislative majority blocks the budgets that would develop Taiwan's economy and national security, and then blames the government for being ineffective.
Then they say that Taiwan must therefore unify with China.
Should Taiwan really become a part of China, an empire of lies?
Unfair aspects of the election system were abolished after the authoritarian era ended, such as electoral district divisions and the KMT using its party assets to secure votes. The strong influence the party still has over the judiciary makes the elections extremely difficult for the pro-localization democratic pan-green camp. No matter how hard it tries, it cannot win a legislative majority. It would be a catastrophe for Taiwan if the KMT, which works closely with Beijing, won a two-thirds legislative majority.
The cooperation between the pro-China New Party and the forces in the KMT supporting former chairman Lien Chan's (
Taiwan is the only democratic country in the world that has a presidential candidate like the KMT's Ma Ying-jeou (
Is he a fit candidate for a democratic country?
Facing such a grim outlook, the pan-green politicians must consider their options.
To win votes, candidates need to mobilize the public and appeal to moderate voters. But pan-green voters also face the problem of whom to vote for, as pan-green politicians are competing against each other. It's not easy to accumulate enough votes to win a legislative seat, but with candidates attacking each other, tens of thousands of votes are lost to the green camp if one of them loses, and then the legislative seat is lost.
Two years ago, the Democratic Progressive Party won the Kaohsiung mayoral elections by a razor-thin margin, resulting in a year of lawsuits. What if the party had lost those few thousands ballots?
Pan-green politicians competing against each other -- regardless of what party they represent or how well they are doing in polls -- must take the initiative to step back and give their votes and their support to the opposing pan-green candidate. At first this might seem to mean throwing away one's political future, but it will benefit the pan-green camp and all of Taiwan. In any case, it is far more preferable to letting a pro-Chinese party win these seats.
Doing so would create more room for Taiwan and take a candidate out of a difficult situation while showing him or her as open-minded, sensible and democratic, thus creating new possibilities for future elections.
Politicians need to move the public. Whoever steps back to make way for another pan-green candidate will move both his or her own voters and those in other districts, showing them that pan-green politicians truly fight for Taiwan's future and not for themselves or for partisan benefits. Taiwanese will remember a candidate stepping back for the greater good.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in Taiwan.
TRANSLATED BY ANNA STIGGELBOUT
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
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.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS