Taiwan’s democracy has been the object of some attention and has had its fair share of compliments over the past few years. Then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell, for example, in 2002 described Taiwan’s political transformation as a “successful story.”
Since the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government took office in May last year, however, questions have been raised over its commitment to safeguarding the most fundamental ideals that gird democracy: human rights and freedom of the press and speech.
Sober observers who care about Taiwan’s development have witnessed disturbing trends in the past year. Expressions such as “erosion of democracy” and “democratic regression” are becoming more frequent in news reports and analysis.
Rather than reacting in a defensive manner, the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) could profit from receiving these complaints with humility and asking itself whether these allegations have the potential to damage its credibility, both domestically and in the international community.
The latest incident to fuel doubts over the government’s approach to human rights and official propriety came on Sunday when five college students staged a protest at a temple in Tainan, where the president was scheduled to make an appearance.
Prior to Ma’s arrival, some of the students were assaulted by black-clad men who removed them from the immediate area. The students, who had broken no law, were later questioned by police.
Ma’s response was less than convincing, preferring to concentrate on the intolerance that was on display rather than the familiar police practice of applying undue pressure on legitimate protests.
The question must be asked again: Whether from the mouths of Chinese democracy activists or KMT politicians, how can Taiwan be remotely suitable as a model for a future Chinese democracy when police forces routinely abuse their powers, thumb their noses at the right to express dissent and intervene on behalf of one side of politics?
Politicians readily forget their words. Ma solemnly swore in his inauguration speech last May that his government would improve “Taiwan’s democracy, enrich its substance, and make it more perfect. To accomplish this, we can rely on the Constitution to protect human rights, uphold law and order, make justice independent and impartial and breathe new life into civil society.”
He added: “Taiwan’s democracy should not be marred by illegal eavesdropping, arbitrary justice and political interference in the media or electoral institutions. All of us share this vision for the next phase of political reform.”
These words are impressive and inspiring. But they are not being backed by concrete action, and without such practical support they remain items of lonely rhetoric.
Former presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) made positive contributions to the nation’s democratic record. Now that responsibility for protecting Taiwan’s democracy has passed to Ma, the question is whether this precious duty is within his capabilities.
The latest report from Freedom House says that Taiwan dropped 11 spots in its press freedom ranking for last year. Government and KMT officials have expressed little regret at this development, but their selective valuing of praise from overseas may turn out to be a little unwise.
For whether out of political interest or a sense of justice, the world is watching — not just Freedom House.
When I visited Taiwan last summer, I called on the nation to use its status as a technology superpower to build superweapons. It is obvious to me as I return a year later that Taiwan is now answering that call. By 2030, Taiwan envisions a domestic drone hub, capable of producing large quantities of drones per year. The nation continues to tighten cooperation across the private sector, scientific researchers and the elected government, on creating new and innovative production avenues for defense, while efforts to become central to the “democratic supply chain” are only increasing. Anduril is seeing all of these positive
Singaporean former Prime Minister and current senior minister Lee Hsien- Loong(李顯龍) last month stood on Chinese soil and told Beijing that Singapore cooperates because of “shared interests”, not because of common “ethnic descent,” a significant statement that has upended China’s cognitive warfare tactics of “ethnic nationalism.” Along with using its military buildup and economic growth to expand its international dominance, China has long deployed ethnic politics to promote the idea that all ethnic Chinese around the world, regardless of citizenship, share a tight bond with the Chinese motherland, by which it means the regime of the People’s Republic of China (PRC)
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) in San Francisco on Tuesday last week said if she had not met with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), she would have been “just a plain” and “even negligible” KMT chairperson, bluntly signaling the role she is playing in her visit to the US — Beijing’s messenger from Taiwan. Cheng and her delegation arrived in the US on Monday last week for a two-week visit across five major cities. Her party said the group is scheduled to meet with US lawmakers, officials, policy experts and businesspeople. Before departing, Cheng said her trip
In 1935, the German Reich led by the National Socialist Party officially created the Nuremberg Race Laws, a “legal cage”, for German Jews, stripping them of citizenship, criminalizing their personal relationships, barring them from public life, and transforming them into stateless subjects and isolating them from the rest of society. Similarly, in March 2026, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) National People’s Congress adopted the “Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress” law, which represents the most significant shift in Chinese domestic governance since the era of Mao Zedong (毛澤東). Ostensibly designed as domestic legislation to manage China’s 56 officially recognized ethnic groups,
RSS