Surrendering sovereignty
While the implications of the talks between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) are still unknown, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his fellow KMT dignitaries’ frantic pursuit of a position as governor of a Chinese province rather than serving as the leader of a sovereign state — Taiwan — is becoming clear as events unfold.
The public has the inalienable right to show its distaste through peaceful demonstrations against Chinese envoys, who in the past have done their best to verbally intimidate and denigrate Taiwan in international settings. Unfortunately, Mr Ma was so humbled that to make Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) and his entourage feel at home when they visited last week, he ordered whatever it took to ensure that the demonstrations were not seen by his “noble” guests.
Not only was this a poor negotiation strategy, but it also showed that the Ma administration was ready to surrender democracy and freedom of expression, for which Taiwanese have fought so hard for more than five decades, just to please the Chinese. It’s the administration and its inability to deal with the economic problems — not the Chinese envoys per se or the riot police — that triggered the anger and violence in the ensuing protests.
If Chen’s visit could trigger the mass deployment of riot police and the temporary suspension of freedom of expression, we should not be surprised to see Ma sending tanks into the crowd as China did in Tiananmen Square two decades ago when Chinese officers come to Taiwan next time to show his Chinese superiors that he and the KMT are really in the same boat with the CCP against democracy and independence.
Han Lin
Chunan, Miaoli County
Ma, KMT to blame for unrest
President Ma Ying-jeou is responsible for the stormy protests against Association for Relations Acrosss the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin last week. Taiwanese are not against trade with China. Taiwan is China’s biggest investor and a large trade partner. What Taiwanese are venting about is trade at the cost of sovereignty. After decades of fighting for democracy, they have legitimate concerns about whether they will be sold out by Ma, Taiwan’s pro-unification leader.
In negotiating for Chen’s visit, Ma essentially reduced Taiwan’s status to a “nongovernment organization,” agreed to be called “Mr” instead of “president,” took down all of Taiwan’s national flags within Chen’s sight and claimed a district-to-district relationship between Taiwan and China. The recent large protests and increasing discontent with Ma’s administration are clear signs that Taiwanese are not ready to trade in their hard-earned democracy for economic gains, and that Ma and his small group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) elite do not represent mainstream Taiwanese opinion.
These protests also reveal the unsettling fact that Taiwan is not yet a true democracy. The election of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), the first non-KMT president, in 2000 created an illusion that Taiwan had achieved democracy. In reality, Taiwan’s current political system is best described as a pseudo-democracy. Since the end of World War II, Taiwanese politics has always been dominated and dictated by the KMT. Chen was elected only because of infighting between KMT factions.
During the democratic movement in the last two decades, the KMT has stonewalled the political reform process. To maintain control, the KMT deliberately set up barriers to prevent further political reforms. The ill effects of these political impediments have begun to emerge. For example, in the last election, 42 percent of the votes for the opposition party only resulted in 24 percent representation in the legislature. This was the outcome of biased election rules enacted by the KMT-controlled legislature. Referendums, the people’s fundamental right to democracy, were essentially barricaded. This, coupled with the fact that a majority of the mass media is run by KMT-controlled business and billions of dollars embezzled in the authoritarian era were used to market KMT candidates, ensured a KMT win in any nationwide election.
That the Legislative Yuan has been continuously dominated by the KMT for 60 years with no possible alternative in sight proves that Taiwan is not a true democracy. While a Zogby poll showed 85 percent of Taiwanese support UN membership, the Legislative Yuan obstructed all proposals for improving Taiwan’s national status throughout Chen Shui-bian’s term in office.
Even though its approval rating has sunk to less than 20 percent, the KMT-dominated Legislative Yuan continues to ignore the multiple protests of up to 500,000 people. And Ma continues his dominance without fear of any political repercussions, including verbally reducing Taiwan’s autonomy to a district relationship with China without putting it to a vote through a referendum or legislative oversight.
This insensitivity and ignorance of mainstream opinion will continue to cause civil unrest. Since the KMT has full control of both the executive and the legislature, it has full responsibility for providing a safe, congenial and true democracy.
This can only be done by establishing a genuine democratic political system and by returning political power to the citizens of Taiwan. All political parties should be fairly represented according to the popular vote, and Taiwanese should have the unobstructed right to hold national referendums. Only then can elected officials and representatives accurately reflect the aspirations of the people and enact laws and regulations that would further democracy and benefit society. Only then can the relationship between Taiwan and China be established with the full consent of Taiwanese.
Taiwan’s democracy has been hijacked by the KMT, whose pro-unification ideology represents the voice of a small minority, yet dominates the political landscape.
STAN YANG
Laguna Hills, California
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
RSS