The Taipei Society recently published a report titled Deconstructing the New One-Party State (解構新黨國) that admonishes President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his administration on issues including the economy, sovereignty, human rights and government.
The report makes 10 suggestions, one of which is replacing the premier. It asserts that Ma’s government has been incompetent in dealing with a series of domestic and international economic crises that have hit Taiwan since its accession seven months ago, while the number of unemployed has reached at least 500,000, making Taiwan’s unemployment rate the highest among the Four Asian Tigers.
The Taiwan Society calls Ma’s regime a “new one-party state” because, with its complete control of the state apparatus, the government has restricted the public’s freedoms of assembly and parade, infringed on judicial rights and suppressed freedom of speech, while at the same time leaning heavily toward the autocratic Chinese regime. All in all, Taiwan’s state and society are regressing in many ways.
The “new one-party state” is fundamentally no different from the old one-party state that controlled Taiwan under dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) after World War II. Just like the Chiangs, the Ma regime has used police brutality against dissidents and manipulated the judiciary, while the media assist the government in brainwashing the public and hounding the ruling party’s political enemies. Moreover, the Ma regime is controlled by a minority, just as the old one was.
While the past dictatorship allocated government jobs according to birthplace, the majority of posts in Ma’s Cabinet are held by Mainlanders, although they account for only 14 percent of Taiwan’s population. The 228 Incident and White Terror of yesteryear were examples of ethnic politics, and so are the policies of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) now that it has returned to power under the guise of democratic elections.
However, the old and new one-party states are not equal in quality of performance. Although under the old regime the legislature was accused of being a mere department of Cabinet, at least the formality of legislative review did take place. Last month, however, when Taiwan’s Straits Exchange Foundation signed four agreements on direct cross-strait transport links with its Chinese counterpart, the legislature was not even allowed to function as a rubber stamp.
In terms of competence, the old regime oversaw Taiwan’s industrialization and steady economic growth and guided it through energy and financial crises. In contrast, the Ma administration has proved its incompetence by implementing unrealistic economic policies that have led to an economic downturn and provoked widespread public discontent after just a few months of government. Now that the global financial storm has arrived, there is even greater cause for worry.
It can be said that the new one-party state has not inherited the old regime’s competence in running the country, but it matches the Chiang regime in its willingness to use police-state methods to keep the people under control.
Above all, the old one-party state kept to its anti-communist principles and aligned itself with advanced countries like the US and Japan. As a result, through the great efforts of its own people and under benign foreign influence, Taiwan’s economy and politics advanced, and democracy and prosperity were finally achieved.
In contrast, the Ma government’s insidious intentions and pro-China policies have led to a rapid economic meltdown and set back Taiwan’s democratic development. This government has abandoned the “three-noes” policy of the old regime — no negotiation, no contact with and no concessions to China — even to the extent of ordering national flags to be taken down during the visit of Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), and again upon the arrival of the two giant pandas from China.
All things considered, the performance of the new one-party state must have Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo turning in their graves.
Lu Shih-hsiang is an adviser to the Taipei Times.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Young supporters of former Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) were detained for posting the names and photographs of judges and prosecutors believed to be overseeing the Core Pacific City redevelopment corruption case. The supporters should be held responsible for their actions. As for Ko’s successor, TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), he should reflect on whether his own comments are provocative and whether his statements might be misunderstood. Huang needs to apologize to the public and the judiciary. In the article, “Why does sorry seem to be the hardest word?” the late political commentator Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) wrote
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on
RSS