Many people are framing the next presidential election as a decisive battle for the future of Taiwan.
Of course, such things are said as any general election approaches. However, few would argue that Taiwan needs a strong hand on the tiller at this point in its history, or that the electorate have a clear choice.
Unfortunately, the two largest parties — the Democratic Progressive Party and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) — have long been guilty of divisive politicking and clinging to party lines. Both have performed poorly as constructive opposition in challenging the government when needed or providing rational policy recommendations, as opposed to blatant boycotting and political point-scoring.
The game seems to be to stymie every move the governing party makes in the hope of a transition in power the next time around. Meanwhile, a legislative majority guarantees that the governing party’s legislation goes through.
The most rational voice of opposition often comes from outside the two parties.
One such case this week was from the New Power Party (NPP), which has little chance of forming a government in the foreseeable future; another was from a self-avowedly neutral Ministry of Foreign Affairs official. Both were in response to policy ideas mooted by Kaohsiung Mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) on Saturday last week.
In response to Han’s call for the annulment of the government’s pension reforms and a reinstatement of the 18 percent preferential interest rate on savings for retired public-sector employees, NPP Legislator Hung Tzu-yung (洪慈庸) accused him of irresponsibly handing out promises he could not keep for the sake of his presidential aspirations.
One might have a problem with the pension reforms, Hung said, but the issue needs to be addressed rationally and not exploited through populist posturing that would ultimately sacrifice the financial future of the next generation.
KMT and DPP governments have long known that the pension system needed to be reformed if bankruptcy was to be avoided and the longer the reforms were delayed, the more painful they were to be.
The preferential interest rate was introduced at a time when the general interest rate was as high as 12 percent: It is now closer to 1 percent. It was also a time when the economy was booming and private sector salaries were soaring, so it was fair and reasonable to seek ways to adjust the remuneration of public-sector employees.
Taiwan’s economic heyday is long gone. Many people are worried about their salaries, savings and pensions. A more considered approach to reassure them might be to look into how to improve the economy, or the institutions and welfare they might rely on in retirement and old age. This would benefit everyone.
Simply returning to what was long-acknowledged as an unsustainable model is opportunistic, lazy and unfair to the next generation.
Ministry official Jerry Liu (劉仕傑), in a Facebook post, tackled Han’s idea of “money-making” diplomacy. Compared with the models of previous presidents — Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) flexible diplomacy, Lee Teng-hui’s (李登輝) pragmatic diplomacy, Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) viable diplomacy and President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) steadfast diplomacy — Han’s model makes absolutely no sense to a career diplomat such as Liu. Again, it is a hollow, populist appeal that betrays a fundamental lack of awareness as to what diplomacy is, how it operates and what its objectives are.
For Liu, diplomacy is about earning trust and respect, about making a contribution and projecting a message of goodwill. Turning up to the party and demanding cash prizes is not going to achieve these goals.
God save us from the politicians.
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing