Since the first round of cross-strait talks under the Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) presidency last year, the pace of developments in the Taiwan Strait has some unnerved, and others — mostly those eyeing investment opportunities — delighted.
Were the government’s high-speed pursuit of economic opportunity rooted in democratic processes, there would be less room for criticism. But cross-strait reforms — regardless of their potential effect on Taiwan’s independence and the livelihoods of Taiwanese — are being decided behind closed doors, and with no public or legislative oversight.
This has been the case across the board, from the inking of far-reaching deals between the Straits Exchange Foundation and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait to the unclear terms of Taiwan’s inclusion in the WHO’s International Health Regulations and its participation at the World Health Assembly.
The lack of transparency amounts to a repudiation of democratic principles.
But this is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) legacy, and the KMT’s creation of a communication channel with the Chinese Communist Party in 2005 is a case in point. The platform, formed under the guidance of former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰), typifies the party’s tactics and was a sign of things to come.
The potential for party-to-party talks to conflict with and undermine the goals and dignity of the government did not concern the KMT; seeking workable ties with its one-time foe was paramount.
Now, the KMT is hoping to cast a democracy-friendly veneer onto a platform that was close to treacherous during the party’s time in opposition. To this end, the KMT has urged the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to participate in this weekend’s cross-strait forum in Hunan.
But with the exception of former DPP legislator Hsu Jung-shu (許榮淑), the DPP isn’t biting. And now that the party has instituted a ban on attending the forum, Hsu faces censure and potential penalties if she attends.
A former Council of Agriculture minister, Fan Chen-tsung (范振宗), has also accepted the KMT’s invitation, but having left the DPP and supported the KMT in the past two presidential elections, his decision was not a shock.
That even one member of the DPP would accept an invitation bodes ill for a party that professes to seek greater transparency and supervision of cross-strait developments. For this reason, the DPP ban against members participating was a necessary signal.
Faced with friction within the KMT, Ma has no doubt had his own concerns about the forum. But while the president may have more confidence in such meetings as he prepares to take the helm of the KMT, the party-to-party platform remains a channel outside any democratic oversight framework.
Cross-strait policy “will not have enough strength and representation if only the KMT is participating in [its] establishment,” Ma has said.
His words sum up a problem that has plagued cross-strait affairs since he took office and which he has a responsibility to mend. But given that Ma thinks these forums are an appropriate location for the government’s cross-strait policies to take shape, the chance of change is unrealistic.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS