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
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
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS