The road to Singapore
Since 2008, Taiwan has slowly reverted to an authoritarian democracy in the mold of Singapore.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government has gone to the extreme, abusing the government apparatus and resources and even changing the presidential election date for its gain. Subject to Beijing’s coercion and pressure, Taiwanese tycoons in China have become hostages of that country, forcing them to play an additional unfair factor in this election.
These factors, coupled with the KMT’s ill-gotten assets and control of the media, have firmly transformed Taiwan into an authoritarian democracy. It will always have elections, but with the KMT having a lopsided advantage.
Meanwhile, in his remarks to supporters after winning his re-election bid, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was seen gloating again. He said the election result indicated support and recognition of his determination to strike against corruption and he did not forget to mention that his wife is forever an “opposition party” at home.
Apparently, in addition to reinforcing his base, this comment was aimed at further trampling the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and polishing his nice-man image. The election night was his “show time.”
The next four years will also be his show time. For Taiwan, given this showman’s proven incompetence, the next four years will spell Nightmare Part 2. Brace tight during the slide (I mean it), my fellow Taiwanese.
Yang Ji-charng
Columbus, Ohio
A response to Jacobs
While I can concur with Bruce Jacobs’ observation of the political situation immediately after Taiwan’s joint elections on Jan. 14 (“DPP faces hard truths after defeat,” Jan. 16, page 8), I have reservations with the two examples he cited for faulting the DPP’s handling of foreign media.
Granted, it would have been nice if then-DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) had agreed to those two interview requests from the Washington Post and the Financial Times, but I cannot quite agree with Jacobs’ leap to the conclusion that “Tsai was unable to counteract the negative feelings among Washington officials, such as the White House’s National Security Council.”
When Tsai visited Washington in September last year, she met with officials from the US Department of State and the National Security Council to explain her views and policies toward China. However, while Tsai was still in Washington, the Times reported that an unidentified senior US official said Tsai had left US President Barack Obama’s administration with “distinct concerns” about her ability to maintain stability in the Taiwan Strait.
It is thus doubtful that more newspaper interviews could have helped Tsai when her face-to-face meeting with US officials did not seem to have won over the Obama administration’s high officials even though the State Department appeared to be satisfied with the DPP chairperson’s visit.
Regarding the second example Jacobs cited, I can speak with certainty. Yes, a group of Taiwanese-American professors, of which I was one, did complete a translation of the DPP’s 10-year policy platform. After having completed the translation of all 19 chapters of the platform, our coordinator sent it on to the DPP headquarters for review and approval for release.
We got a reply indicating that “the ideal situation is that each chapter being reviewed by the person[s] who drafted the platform, but it would not be able to complete” the review and approval process in a few weeks’ time. Our view is that the reason for the delay was a shortage of manpower within the DPP, rather than “a key aide to Tsai” blocking its release. In any case, we did subsequently send the English translation of the DPP policy platform to the Washington-based Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA). And we do believe that FAPA must have since made it available to the US press as well as US congressional officials.
Finally, I would like to add that later developments unfortunately have proved that in spite of its public statement that the US government would maintain neutrality in the Jan. 14 elections, it played a role in influencing the outcome of the elections.
First, in December, the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) appeared to hand Ma an election-season gift by announcing that Taiwan’s long-awaited application for visa-free access to the US was nearing approval. The final blow was delivered by former AIT director Douglas Paal on Jan. 12, two days before the election. He suggested that Washington was unhappy with Tsai and her tougher approach to dealing with China.
If she won, he told a Taiwanese cable television channel, the US would have to “massively and quickly engage to try to help her come to a formula that would preserve peace and stability. He added that both Washington and Beijing would breathe “a huge sigh of relief” if Ma were re-elected. His remarks were immediately carried on the front pages of several newspapers the following day.
The damage of US intervention was done even though we have no way of calculating how many votes it cost Tsai and the DPP. It is also certain that it has blemished the US’ cherished reputation of being pro-democracy.
Ching-chih Chen
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US