As one of the signatories of the letter to president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) by a group of international academics and writers (“An open letter to Taiwan’s president,” Nov. 13, page 8), I was perplexed by the tone and content of the response from Government Information Office Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) (“GIO response to Nov. 13 open letter,” Dec. 18, page 8).
Instead of welcoming the suggestions of such a distinguished group of international academics, Su went into a defensive mode, used quotes from organizations such as Freedom House out of context and tried to make us believe that all is well with judicial independence and the health of Taiwan’s democracy.
Taiwan still ranked among the world’s “free” countries in 2008 and last year because of the hard work of previous governments — the pioneering work of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and the sustained progress made under former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁).
The point that minister Su seems to fail to understand is that — in the view of many international observers — Taiwan’s democracy and human rights have regressed since Ma came to office.
The “right answer” would have been to say the government would assess any shortcomings and take steps toward judicial reform.
This has also been suggested by other international academics, such as Jerome Cohen, but the only response from Taipei has been to whitewash the obvious flaws in the system and to assert that “everything is all right.”
In the next few days, Freedom House will issue its report for this year and one can bet that Taiwan’s standing in the rankings will go down.
So if the Ma administration is really serious about human rights and democracy it will need to seriously rethink its approach and move toward much-needed judicial reform.
On the issue of cross-strait relations, it is obvious that everyone is in favor of improvement. The question is: At what expense?
Many observers both inside and outside Taiwan are concluding that rapprochement with China has occurred at the expense of democracy and human rights.
It should be obvious to Su and his colleagues that this is not the right way to go about it.
In a separate response to another signatory, Richard Kagan, Su states: “The mantra that democracy in Taiwan is less robust than before utterly conflicts with reality.”
He then quotes the results of the recent local elections to prove his point.
What he fails to understand is the significant reduction in the KMT’s support has occurred because many people have doubts about the government’s adherence to basic principles of democracy and human rights.
If the Ma administration really intends to “significantly enhance the quality of our democracy” (Su’s words) it would be highly desirable if these basic principles were adhered too.
The recent beef problem with the US and the ongoing debate about an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China show that the Ma administration is still following a “top-down” approach, instead of listening to public opinion.
Gerrit van der Wees is the editor of Taiwan Communique in Washington.
From the Iran war and nuclear weapons to tariffs and artificial intelligence, the agenda for this week’s Beijing summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is packed. Xi would almost certainly bring up Taiwan, if only to demonstrate his inflexibility on the matter. However, no one needs to meet with Xi face-to-face to understand his stance. A visit to the National Museum of China in Beijing — in particular, the “Road to Rejuvenation” exhibition, which chronicles the rise and rule of the Chinese Communist Party — might be even more revealing. Xi took the members
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
The inter-Korean relationship, long defined by national division, offers the clearest mirror within East Asia for cross-strait relations. Yet even there, reunification language is breaking down. The South Korean government disclosed on Wednesday last week that North Korea’s constitutional revision in March had deleted references to reunification and added a territorial clause defining its border with South Korea. South Korea is also seriously debating whether national reunification with North Korea is still necessary. On April 27, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung marked the eighth anniversary of the Panmunjom Declaration, the 2018 inter-Korean agreement in which the two Koreas pledged to
I wrote this before US President Donald Trump embarked on his uneventful state visit to China on Thursday. So, I shall confine my observations to the joint US-Philippine military exercise of April 20 through May 8, known collectively as “Balikatan 2026.” This year’s Balikatan was notable for its “firsts.” First, it was conducted primarily with Taiwan in mind, not the Philippines or even the South China Sea. It also showed that in the Pacific, America’s alliance network is still robust. Allies are enthusiastic about America’s renewed leadership in the region. Nine decades ago, in 1936, America had neither military strength
RSS