When Westerners see someone taking on a position of responsibility which results in themselves being left to deal with a pile of insoluble problems, they often say: “I do not envy him/her.”
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) first contested a presidential election in 2012, a senior economist issued a warning, saying that if Taiwan really wanted reform, it must be prepared to sacrifice itself. Tsai responded by saying that Taiwan’s democracy was mature, and that there was no need to exaggerate. The economist said she was too naive and did not have a sufficient understanding of Chinese. I agree completely.
Tsai should be congratulated on winning this year’s presidential election, but she does not find herself in an envious position. The nation’s status is not determined and Taiwan’s national identity is in turmoil. Tsai is surrounded by enemies: in front of her, she faces the Chinese tiger and behind her lies the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) snake.
She is faced with unprecedented debt — every newborn Taiwanese child is NT$1 million in debt — and military personnel, civil servants and public school teachers continue to enjoy their exorbitant pensions. The economy is in a slump, exports and tax revenues have dropped sharply, unemployment is high and salaries are low, education institutions are struggling and the economy is dependent on China to the point that Taiwan’s survival is at risk.
Military preparedness is in decline, arms are out of date, high-ranking military leaders are friendly with China, the mid-level leadership is full of communist spies and the lower levels are encumbered by frequent failures, while the whole nation has been infiltrated by the Chinese Communist Party.
Then there are the issues of deteriorating food safety and a dispute over power generation, among others.
During World War II, Winston Churchill was appointed British prime minister as the nation’s existence was in peril.
He told parliament that he had “nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat” and that it would be necessary “to wage war, by sea, land and air” and that the goal was “victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror ... for without victory, there is no survival.”
It was a speech that aroused British morale. France lost World War I, but then Germany was defeated in World War II.
When Iceland was on the brink of a national default, Icelandic people worked hard and before long the nation was back on its feet. Taiwan has suffered under long-standing misrule, which is unlikely to change overnight; before things begin to improve, they are likely to worsen for quite some time.
No one knows if Taiwanese possess the same strength as other nation’s mentioned above, but they are honest and hardworking, and if the government tells it as it is, perhaps the public would unite to get through a difficult transition period.
The government should not try to hide major ills and possible obstacles, but announce them and offer regular reports on reform progress — or the reasons for lack of progress — so that the public can appreciate the government’s determination to move forward and better the nation.
Someone recently demanded that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) take the KMT back to China. I have also heard that someone offered to provide big passenger ships to send the party and its members back to China. We can only hope that the new president would make Taiwanese happy by taking up this offer.
Peng Ming-min is a former presidential adviser.
Translated by Perry Svensson
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
On Monday last week, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Raymond Greene met with Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers to discuss Taiwan-US defense cooperation, on the heels of a separate meeting the previous week with Minister of National Defense Minister Wellington Koo (顧立雄). Departing from the usual convention of not advertising interactions with senior national security officials, the AIT posted photos of both meetings on Facebook, seemingly putting the ruling and opposition parties on public notice to obtain bipartisan support for Taiwan’s defense budget and other initiatives. Over the past year, increasing Taiwan’s defense budget has been a sore spot
Media said that several pan-blue figures — among them former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), former KMT legislator Lee De-wei (李德維), former KMT Central Committee member Vincent Hsu (徐正文), New Party Chairman Wu Cheng-tien (吳成典), former New Party legislator Chou chuan (周荃) and New Party Deputy Secretary-General You Chih-pin (游智彬) — yesterday attended the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) military parade commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. China’s Xinhua news agency reported that foreign leaders were present alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean leader Kim
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) is expected to be summoned by the Taipei City Police Department after a rally in Taipei on Saturday last week resulted in injuries to eight police officers. The Ministry of the Interior on Sunday said that police had collected evidence of obstruction of public officials and coercion by an estimated 1,000 “disorderly” demonstrators. The rally — led by Huang to mark one year since a raid by Taipei prosecutors on then-TPP chairman and former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) — might have contravened the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法), as the organizers had