If you were to make a list of the things that Taiwanese are most fed up with, the incessant squabbling between the pan-blue and pan-green camps would have to be close to the top of the list. It squanders the nation’s resources and potential and is a heinous waste of time that only leads to missed opportunities. It is because of this that Taiwan has been treading water for so many years now, making it difficult for the younger generation to compete internationally.
Neither camp can be absolved of responsibility.
Despite the constant squabbling and refusal to compromise, there was an effort on both sides to momentarily bury the hatchet and to pull together after the earthquake on Feb. 6 caused so many deaths in Tainan. The results were really quite impressive.
Disaster response is the primary responsibility of the local government, and Tainan Mayor William Lai (賴清德) really came through on this occasion, not resting until the search-and-rescue operation was complete.
His efforts were not lost on the residents of Tainan, and indeed people across the nation acknowledged his efforts and the sense of duty and purpose with which he dispatched his remit as mayor.
A useful comparison is with the 921 Earthquake of 1999. The Feb. 6 earthquake was no less devastating, and yet the difference was in the organization of the response. This time, it was much more efficient. The lessons learned from the 921 Earthquake were used to great effect in Tainan: What was seen was effective communication between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) central government and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) local government, with the Tainan City Government addressing events on the ground and the central government mobilizing personnel and national resources, while Premier Simon Chang (張善政) made several visits to the disaster scene to see the situation for himself.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) also visited Tainan many times, and commended Lai’s efforts on his Facebook page.
In return, Lai thanked Ma and the Executive Yuan on Facebook for their assistance. Meanwhile, the premier and legislative speaker, hailing from different parties, maintained telephone contact, discussing the best ways in which disaster response efforts could be carried out. Politicians of all stripes worked together in what was a rare display of political harmony.
Another useful comparison can be made with the highly politicized response to the 2014 gas pipeline explosions in Kaohsiung. The odor of smoke and gas at the scene was no match for the air of rancor between the local and central governments. Small wonder, then, that the disaster response and reconstruction efforts were problematic.
There is no need for such mutual hostility. Why do the nation’s politicians seem to display little of the tolerance that Taiwanese pride themselves on having? The response to the Feb. 6 earthquake was more in keeping with what we might expect of Taiwanese working together.
Ma has proven to be a divisive president, but his time in office is coming to a close. Partisan and factional bickering has been a feature of his presidency, during which the chairpersons of the KMT and DPP met only once and rifts widened within the KMT. Neither has Ma listened to the public, preferring to keep things within his own small clique. It was precisely this style of governance, in which he spurned others’ input, that brought his party’s catastrophic defeat in the Jan. 16 elections.
President-elect Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) is likely to have learned from Ma’s failures. One of her first goals should be dismantling the barrier between the two main parties. Politics need not be a zero-sum game. It should be about cooperation, mutual assistance and striving for win-win solutions. If the political atmosphere improves, then so too shall Taiwan.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with