The political storm brewing over an approaching personnel reshuffle at the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy was anything but inevitable.
Not long after news emerged that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) intended to make changes to the foundation’s board of directors, various organizations in Taiwan and the US began accusing Ma of interfering in the affairs of this reputable organization. One US congressman has gone so far as to call on US President Barack Obama to get involved.
Criticism of the reshuffle has centered on Ma’s efforts to improve relations with Beijing. Support and funding by the foundation for Tibetan groups and pro-democracy elements in China and Cuba, it has been alleged, would be the main targets of the Ma administration following alleged complaints by Beijing.
National Security Council Secretary-General Su Chi (蘇起) is also reported to have demanded the removal of deputy executive directors Maysing Yang (楊黃美幸) and Tung Li-wen (董立文).
Despite claims by the Presidential Office that the pending reshuffle is not politically motivated, accusations by reputable organizations such as the US-based Freedom House — which downgraded Taiwan 11 spots in its most recent index — and the Formosan Association for Public Affairs that Ma is seeking to hamstring the foundation are proving hard to ignore.
That the foundation’s chairman, Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), has remained silent over the controversy has only invited more criticism. If, as the head of the foundation and one of the most powerful officials in the country, Wang cannot exercise his influence to keep the foundation free of partisan skulduggery, then the ramifications for other organizations of this nature are worrying, indeed.
Another aspect fueling concern over any changes is the fact that the foundation came together under the former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government. Ever since Ma became president, his administration has endeavored to reverse the DPP’s symbolic achievements, such as renaming Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall and Chunghwa Post. The foundation would be the latest victim of this process, and in practical terms a more tragic one: Monuments and postal services are not responsible for seeding democracy in foreign lands.
There is a degree of speculation in this controversy. Government sources remain anonymous and for now rights watchdogs are more fearful than they are informed. But the present political environment, in which human rights and freedom of speech are suffering gradual erosion, justifies vigilance. A case in point: The Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission is now accused of trying to eviscerate the agenda of the Taiwan-Tibet Exchange Foundation.
By deed, if not by word, the Ma administration is earning an unfavorable reputation — and it only has itself to blame. Given this administration’s track record and its growing willingness to sacrifice core values for Beijing’s sake, accusations of manipulation of groups like the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy will cast a shadow for as long as the government refuses to demonstrate that its intentions are benign.
The opaqueness of the government’s agenda for the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy is simply unacceptable. If a reshuffle takes place that is consistent with Beijing’s wishes then Taiwan’s capacity and reputation as a cultivator of democracy will continue to decline.
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
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Saturday is the day of the first batch of recall votes primarily targeting lawmakers of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The scale of the recall drive far outstrips the expectations from when the idea was mooted in January by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘). The mass recall effort is reminiscent of the Sunflower movement protests against the then-KMT government’s non-transparent attempts to push through a controversial cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014. That movement, initiated by students, civic groups and non-governmental organizations, included student-led protesters occupying the main legislative chamber for three weeks. The two movements are linked
RSS