Little more than a year into President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) first term in office, and a year away from the next Taipei mayoral election, the nation is once again seeing political reporting and opposition slide toward farce and superficiality.
Two good examples illustrate the almost inevitable phenomenon in Taiwan’s political and electoral cycles, one international and one domestic. Internationally, we have seen China accuse Tsai and her Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration of “desinicization” (and other related, but more grammatically convoluted variants on the same theme) for their changes to the curriculum guidelines that truthfully define the Potsdam and Cairo declarations as non-treaty events, which had and continue to have, no legal bearing on the international status of Taiwan.
Aside from being an act of interference in the sovereignty of Taiwan, China’s ethno-racially charged accusation that the revisions represented a cultural provocation and former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) continuing to try to reify his interpretation of the events as immutable historical truths originate from a desperate desire to find something with which to smear Tsai.
Domestically, when the Environmental Protection Administration suggested that temples might cut down on the use of incense, firecrackers and burning ghost money in an effort to help protect the environment and reduce air pollution, social and mainstream media fed off each other to twist the story into the accusation that Tsai was effectively banning religion.
No amount of explanation could prevent members of more than 100 temples congregating in Taipei for a protest about a literal non-issue.
In the UK, during the summertime, when politics is slower than usual, people often categorize such minor outbreaks of misdirected or illogical grumbling as part of the “silly season” in the news cycle.
In Taiwan, with its 24-hour cable news networks scouring social media for controversy and contrarian opinions, silly season is part of the daily operating model of an industry that profits from a looped news cycle of social conflict, traffic accidents, gruesome criminality, the macabre, fluff pieces about animals, medical warnings and food scares.
However, one good thing did emerge from the protest — it drew crowds of bemused and curious onlookers keen to see for the first time so many often-competing temple processions converging.
The Ministry of Culture should encourage another United Annual Faith Bazaar for the same date next year and promote it abroad as the largest gathering of its kind in Asia.
It would certainly be a huge attraction both for local and international tourists. It should make it a 12-hour event from noon and invite other denominations such as the Hindu, Sikh, Jewish, Muslim and Christian communities, and Taiwan would have something truly diverse, inclusive and spectacular to singularly identify itself by on the world stage.
It would be a soft power win, which would contrast with China’s Islamophobic crackdown in occupied East Turkestan [Xinjiang] and its continued suppression of Christians and Falun Gong practitioners.
However, the underlying concern with such domestic outbreaks of misdirected ire and resentment (China’s policy-driven “warnings” aside, which are inevitable and should be responded to in kind) is that they represent a failure of political opposition that ultimately undermines the integrity and authority of the political process, a degradation of discourse and debate that the world has seen lead the UK to catastrophically vote itself out of the EU and, even worse, the US elect an ignorant, incompetent, mendacious, abusive, egotistical plutocrat as its president.
In Taiwan, formal party opposition to pension reforms and infrastructure spending bills has been both imbalanced and ineffective, providing the government and the public little in the way of constructive criticism.
In the ideological vacuum, media attention has focused on physical confrontations that have smacked more of overreaction and unwarranted hysteria than a justified existential plea for the government to reconsider its policies.
Physical protest is not new in Taiwan and is perhaps a defining feature of its democracy. The freedom to assemble and demand redress from the government is much prized in the nation and rightly so, especially given the history of the KMT dictatorship and the sterilized, Orwellian authoritarianism across the Taiwan Strait.
Big demonstrations, such as the Wild Lily Student Movement, the Sunflower movement and the “red shirt” rallies and sit-ins, have cemented themselves in the public’s mind and the nation’s history, but outside of pantomime theatrics in the legislature, protest has been frequent and has changed the debate over a range of issues such as nuclear power, media monopolization, police brutality, same-sex marriage rights, abuses within the military, environmental protection, Aboriginal rights and cross-strait agreements, to name just a few.
However, when opposition parties organize protests, there seems to be a corresponding decline in its perceived legitimacy among the public, as if it senses manipulation.
The DPP, having utilized this as a central mobilization tactic for decades, moved away from the strategy during the Sunflower movement, keeping at arm’s length and voicing support, but not bringing the party machine directly into the affair, thereby granting the student demonstration the autonomy it deserved. As a result, the public came to view the students’ actions with greater legitimacy.
Sadly, it appears that the KMT has yet to learn this lesson and its involvement in red shirt and anti-pension reform protests tainted the party as opportunistic, ignoble, petulant — willing to associate with unsavory and undemocratic voices and groups, even as they use democracy and freedom as an umbrella to shield them from criticism.
Despite the KMT having the second-largest number of seats in the legislature, being the richest political party and having the most extensive local political networks, it appears to be less effective than the New Power Party (NPP) in its attempts to hold the Tsai administration to account.
It is not that there is a lack of areas or issues on which to criticize the president and her government. The infrastructure bill was problematic and represented a massive amount of spending, some of which was questionable, and appeared to be more about building a physical legacy and the pork-barrel politics of building bridges to nowhere for votes, but the KMT’s failure to rationally discuss the policy and its budget stood in contrast with the NPP’s specific and targeted criticisms.
The KMT failed as an opposition party, because it was too busy opposing for the sake of opposition, perhaps proving that it still has not learned how not to be in power.
The KMT’s internal divisions, protracted messy leadership selections, aging party A-listers who cannot step aside for younger faces, unclear relationship to splinter organizations, through which it has laundered vast sums of state money, and its predictable promotion of at least one relative of either Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) or Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) as the next great political hope for the party signal an organization slowly decaying from within.
With China publicly declaring that the so-called “1992 consensus” does not mean that the Republic of China can have its own interpretation, even the KMT’s favorite cross-strait shibboleth has collapsed, and along with it the pretense that its “success” in China relations was anything other than just a series of private backroom deals stitched up between two Leninist Chinese nationalist parties against Taiwanese democracy and sovereignty.
Taiwanese and their democracy desperately want and need a functional, reasonable and serious opposition that can hold Tsai and her government to their election promises, while also working for the greater public and environmental good, and the interests of the nation as a whole.
If the KMT keeps failing to provide proportionate, principled and intelligent opposition, it cannot act surprised if its string of electoral disasters continues, perhaps eventually being replaced by another as the largest opposition party.
Ben Goren is an essayist, businessman and long-term resident in Taiwan.
In a Facebook post on Wednesday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) wrote: “The KMT must fall for Taiwan to improve.’ Allow me to ask the question again: Is this really true?” It matters not how many times Hsu asks the question, my answer will always be the same: “Yes, the KMT must be toppled for Taiwan to improve.” In the lengthy Facebook post, titled “What were those born in the 1980s guilty of?” Hsu harked back to the idealistic aspirations of the 2014 Sunflower movement before heaping opprobrium on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP)
The scuffle between Chinese embassy staffers in Fiji and a Taiwanese diplomat at a Republic of China (ROC) Double Ten National Day celebration has turned into a public relations opportunity for the government, Beijing and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Although the incident occurred on Oct. 8, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) downplayed it, only for the story to be picked up by the foreign media, forcing the ministry to respond. The public and opposition parties asked why the government had failed to remonstrate more strongly in the first instance. It is still unclear whether the ministry missed a trick
US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, former US vice president Joe Biden, are holding their final debate tonight. In their foreign policy debate, China is sure to be a major issue of contention for the two candidates. Here are several questions the moderator should pose to the candidates: For both: In the first televised US presidential debates in 1960, then-Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy and his Republican counterpart, Richard Nixon, were asked whether the US should intervene if communist China attacked Taiwan’s outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu. Kennedy said no, unless the main island of Taiwan was also attacked.
For most of us, the colorful, otherworldly marinescapes of coral reefs are as remote as the alien landscapes of the moon. We rarely, if ever, experience these underwater wonderlands for ourselves — we are, after all, air-breathing, terrestrial creatures mostly cocooned in cities. It is easy not to notice the perilous state they are in: We have lost 50 percent of coral reefs in the past 20 years and more than 90 percent are expected to die by 2050, a presentation at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Diego, California, earlier this year showed. As the oceans heat further and