In his new book, Taiwan’s Presidential Elections, Japanese political scientist Yoshiyuki Ogasawara writes that the 1996 presidential election was a turning point in Taiwan’s transition to democracy, marking a departure from the long-held assumption of the existence of “one China.” Taiwanese were waking to the idea that holding presidential elections meant Taiwan must be a sovereign nation.
He writes about the clash of mutually exclusive assumptions in Taiwanese-style democracy, including the idea that power lay in the hands of the electorate, but that the government was responsible for addressing problems and should do so immediately.
He also writes that Taiwanese are always looking for a safety valve through which to vent their concerns and frustrations.
Taiwanese vote for officials from borough wardens all the way up to the president, and the electorate in territories actually governed by the Republic of China (ROC) has formed a “voting collective” in a process similar to Taiwan New Century Foundation chairman Chen Lung-chu’s (陳隆志) idea of “an evolution to independence.”
However, the journey has been a long one from the Japanese colonial era city and township councilor elections in 1935, when half were elected by Taiwanese and the other half appointed by prefecture governors, and when suffrage was extended only to men aged 25 or older who had paid a tax of ¥5 (US$0.05 at the current exchange rate) or more.
In the post-war period, the only direct elections were at the local level and it was not until the 1970s when regular supplementary elections were held for the National Assembly and Legislative Yuan at the national level.
Taiwanese cast votes in their droves for the victims — and the lawyers who represented them — of the Kaohsiung Incident, an event then still fresh in the public memory that led directly to the lifting of the ban on forming political parties, making way for the democracy movement.
However, elections during the Martial Law era were not entirely devoid of positives.
The Chinese academic and philosopher Hu Shih (胡適) once used them to differentiate Taiwan from China and the Soviet Union. Hu refuted points made in a June 29, 1954, article by former Taiwan provincial governor Wu Kuo-chen (吳國楨) published in the US in Look magazine titled: “Your Money has Built a Police State in Formosa.”
Hu defended the ROC government, citing elections for Taipei and Chiayi City, in which the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidates were defeated by non-KMT candidates. These results were also used by the New York Times and the Hong Kong Times as evidence that Taiwan had free elections.
However, it was also widely known that Taiwan under martial law not only banned political parties outside of the KMT, but also lacked freedom of the press, and that during elections voting stations would occasionally suffer “power cuts” when the votes were being counted. Non-KMT victories were few and far between, and then only because of the persistence of upstanding individuals fighting the good fight.
This year is the 40th anniversary of the Kaohsiung Incident. It was the political vision of the dangwai (黨外, “outside the party”) movement that at the time sought a return to the Constitution — the lifting of martial law and the ban on political parties, as well as the abolition of the National Assembly.
Although Taiwanese still have the Constitution, it has been amended by former presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), which has forged the collective sense of a sovereign nation among the residents of Taiwan and the outlying islands.
Chen Yi-shen is president of Academia Historica.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Chinese state-owned companies COSCO Shipping Corporation and China Merchants have a 30 percent stake in Kaohsiung Port’s Kao Ming Container Terminal (Terminal No. 6) and COSCO leases Berths 65 and 66. It is extremely dangerous to allow Chinese companies or state-owned companies to operate critical infrastructure. Deterrence theorists are familiar with the concepts of deterrence “by punishment” and “by denial.” Deterrence by punishment threatens an aggressor with prohibitive costs (like retaliation or sanctions) that outweigh the benefits of their action, while deterrence by denial aims to make an attack so difficult that it becomes pointless. Elbridge Colby, currently serving as the Under
The Ministry of the Interior on Thursday last week said it ordered Internet service providers to block access to Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小紅書, also known as RedNote in English) for a year, citing security risks and more than 1,700 alleged fraud cases on the platform since last year. The order took effect immediately, abruptly affecting more than 3 million users in Taiwan, and sparked discussions among politicians, online influencers and the public. The platform is often described as China’s version of Instagram or Pinterest, combining visual social media with e-commerce, and its users are predominantly young urban women,
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi lit a fuse the moment she declared that trouble for Taiwan means trouble for Japan. Beijing roared, Tokyo braced and like a plot twist nobody expected that early in the story, US President Donald Trump suddenly picked up the phone to talk to her. For a man who normally prefers to keep Asia guessing, the move itself was striking. What followed was even more intriguing. No one outside the room knows the exact phrasing, the tone or the diplomatic eyebrow raises exchanged, but the broad takeaway circulating among people familiar with the call was this: Trump did