ON A RECENT political talk show, a commentator criticized the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) in heated terms for failing to lend its support to Frank Hsieh (
Demanding that DPP members lend their support to Hsieh is a given, and there is nothing wrong with demanding the same of non-partisan candidates. But to demand support from another political party shows a lack of common sense regarding party politics.
In a normal democratic system, unless a candidate is co-nominated or parties have cooperative agreements, a party will not easily lend its support to another party's candidate, especially as the TSU is gambling its political future on the single district election format.
Even if a party does not have its own candidate, it should not easily lend its support to the candidate of another party, which is a normal way for a party to maintain its character and independence, as well as a basic criterion for staying on its own political path.
Parties are different because of different goals. This difference prohibits a party from supporting another party's path and candidate. Hence, even after Saturday's legislative elections, from the perspective of integrity, the TSU is under no obligation to support the DPP candidate. For instance, the DPP candidate's economic policy is in favor of direct links and the relaxation of regulations for trade with China, the cancellation of the 40 percent cap on China-bound investments, and a positive view of economic unification.
These policies are diametrically opposed to the TSU's economic policy of joining with the West (i.e. the US and Japan) and opposing increasing reliance on China. With such a divergence of opinion, how can the TSU abandon its own goals to support a "one China" economy platform?
Commentators demand that the TSU lend its support to the DPP candidate prior to the presidential election based on the argument of preventing a split in the pan-green camp -- in other words, not lending support is tantamount to creating a split and betraying pro-localization principles. But we must understand that politics is a kind of compromise, and a kind of communication, where large parties should respect small parties.
If the DPP ignores the TSU's platform, and insists only on following its own and demanding unconditional support, and even tries to marginalize the TSU using the extreme opposition between pan-green and pan-blue camps so that it can dominate the pan-green territory, then the DPP itself would endanger the solidarity of pro-localization forces. As for how to communicate, compromise, and garner support -- the ball is in the DPP's court, and success depends on the wisdom of the leader of the larger party.
In the current situation where 80 percent of Taiwan's foreign investment goes to China and the level of economic dependence has reached 40 percent, whether the DPP, which continues to support relaxing economic regulations, can still be considered a pro-localization party is a valid question.
We must understand that political tendencies toward unification or independence often oscillate rapidly due to sudden and isolated factors. The economy, however, is different in that it is difficult to alter economic tendencies toward unification or independence over a short span of time. This is why China has long since deployed economic policy as a primary tool for advancing unification.
Political paths can be examined: the TSU, which has insisted on Taiwanese independence, a new constitution, changing the national title, entering the UN, economic unity with Western nations and opposing a relaxation of regulations toward China is undoubtedly a pro-localization party.
The TSU has previously played a key role in protecting Taiwan's interests in terms of issues such as permitting eight-inch wafer factories and banks to move to China, allowing the importation of Chinese towels and clothing and relaxing regulations on China-bound investments.
In this respect, the existence of the TSU is pivotal to whether the DPP can remain a pro-localization party.
Without the TSU, if the DPP follows its current "confident opening" path toward China, regardless of its cries for entering the UN and for writing a new constitution, Taiwan's future will still be that of the pan-blue camp's eventual unification.
Hopefully pro-localization voters will think not only of forcing the TSU to support the DPP candidate. The ball is in the DPP's court: if the DPP fails to garner TSU support, the failure would be a warning sign, and a consequence of the DPP's insistence on pursuing a "one China economy" path.
Huang Tien-lin is a former national policy adviser.
TRANSLATED BY ANGELA HONG
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