In 1996, Taiwan held its first direct presidential election. As a native Taiwanese and a member of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) played a key role in the nation’s transition to democracy. This offered an opportunity for the KMT to transform itself into a “Taiwanese Nationalist Party” and for the Republic of China (ROC) to gain a new lease on life here in Taiwan.
If Taiwan could have had a new constitution as a result, the ROC in exile would have entered history, putting an end to the period between 1949 and 1996, although, since the writing and implementation of a new constitution would take some time, that would perhaps not have happened until 2000.
That would have been the prelude to the formation of a new country. A constitution based on Lee’s 1999 “special state-to-state” formula would have led to the creation of a new reality and a new political vision for Taiwan.
This new political vision would have looked something like this: China in exile would have ceased to exist in 1949, and the creation of a new China would not be incomplete because there was another China elsewhere. Perhaps Taiwan and China would have been able to establish peaceful state-to-state relations, and as the two countries devoted themselves to their own national development, a new era would have begun in Asia.
Rather than saying that the presidency of Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) from 2000 to 2008 and the presidency of Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) from 2008 to next year signify the development of a nation, it would probably be better to say that this period has been a competition between two nations within a single statehood; between a Taiwanese Taiwan and a Chinese Taiwan. This split identity has destroyed the significance of the attempt to rebuild the nation through direct presidential elections.
The KMT’s change from being anti-communist to being pro-communist was a negative consequence of the party’s Chinese identity. The ROC state apparatus has existed in Taiwan for longer than it existed in China, but it still values the 38 years that it ruled China over the 66 years that it has ruled Taiwan. This regime in exile has failed to accomplish its localization, but this fictional state has never stopped extrapolating from its fragmentary existence and fantasizing about the completeness of its own existence.
The KMT has hijacked the ROC and become obsessed with the party-state. In an effort to secure its minority rule, the party has recruited a group of native Taiwanese politicians who have forgotten their integrity due to personal gain.
However, democratic principles are all but certain to eliminate such minority rule, and the wise and enlightened Taiwanese will not continue to obey a colonial ruler. This is the predicament facing the KMT as it attempts to maintain a fictional Chinese state in Taiwan.
No matter how much it wants to make “micro-adjustments” to high-school curriculum guidelines, the government will be unable to curb the Taiwanese identity from growing stronger.
Still, some people continue to fail to think things through, and they are entering a dead end that everyone else rejects.
Without a new constitution, there is still no way out for this “country,” even after five direct presidential elections. Both the party-state and pro-localization formula face challenges today. Despite the expedient measure of maintaining the “status quo,” a revolutionary new Taiwanese national structure must be established.
Lee Min-yung is a poet.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
Taiwan has lost Trump. Or so a former State Department official and lobbyist would have us believe. Writing for online outlet Domino Theory in an article titled “How Taiwan lost Trump,” Christian Whiton provides a litany of reasons that the William Lai (賴清德) and Donald Trump administrations have supposedly fallen out — and it’s all Lai’s fault. Although many of Whiton’s claims are misleading or ill-informed, the article is helpfully, if unintentionally, revealing of a key aspect of the MAGA worldview. Whiton complains of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s “inability to understand and relate to the New Right in America.” Many
RSS