As someone who has lived in Taiwan and closely followed and written about its democracy for the past three decades, I must admit that, overall, I was pleased with the Jan. 11 election results.
It may be biased to say, but the people have spoken and democracy triumphed.
The incumbent Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), won another four-year term.
Meanwhile, the DPP, which maintained its majority in the Legislative Yuan, received a mild warning as it lost some legislative seats. Tellingly, in the separate party vote, the DPP and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) received an equal amount of legislative seats.
Kaohsiung Mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜), the KMT populist candidate, was sent packing back to Kaohsiung to see if he has any ability to be a real mayor, let alone a president.
In the arena of third parties, which should be considered necessary in a democracy, there were some surprises.
First, the voters sounded the death knell of People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) and the PFP. Soong received a disappointing 4.2 percent of the vote for president. Since he will be 81 by the next presidential election in 2024, the chances of him trying to run a campaign again are minimal.
Further, despite its early confidence that it could win 10 legislative seats, the PFP did not pass the 5 percent threshold in the party vote. It therefore will have no representation in the upcoming legislature. Since the PFP shepherd has been slain, the flock will no doubt scatter.
The New Power Party (NPP) continued to maintain some influence by again obtaining three legislator-at-large seats in the party vote. One of its former members, Legislator Freddy Lim (林昶佐), held on to his seat, but this time as an independent.
However, the big surprise was that of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), which won five legislator-at-large seats through the party vote.
Founded by Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), the TPP replaced the NPP as the third-largest party in the nation. With its showing, and that Ko would finish his second term as mayor of Taipei in 2022, it seems likely that Ko would consider running for president in 2024.
Taiwan has clearly progressed in its democracy, and yet for any close observer, there remains a strong sense of deja vu. It brings to mind the French saying: “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”
Why? What has created this haunting sense of deja vu, which, like the pungent aroma of stale and dated perfume, continues to hang over both Taiwan and that nation on the other side of the Taiwan Strait?
Begin with the People’s Republic of China (PRC):
In 2013, I wrote an opinion piece about how, despite the KMT victory in 2012 and the despair in some DPP circles, to a close observer, the DPP was already back in the game even with the 2008 scandals of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) (“China will have to deal with DPP,” April 24, 2013, page 8).
True, the KMT had won again in 2012, but its victories were a clear and distant second to those of 2008. Then-president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was already losing his sheen and he had now received the title of “bumbler.” Further, the KMT had no strong candidate to replace him in 2016. It did not find one and lost.
That op-ed claimed that China would definitely have to face the inevitable future reality of dealing with the DPP. How true. Few believed it then, but that reality has prevailed. The DPP and Taiwan’s democracy are clearly not going away.
The DPP won presidential the and legislative elections in 2016 and again this year. The landscape and thinking of Taiwan continues to change as new voters raised in democracy fill the ranks. Yet the PRC, in its own blustery way, still tries to operate as if the reality of Taiwan’s democracy and the DPP can be ignored.
A major part of this PRC problem is of course ideological. Its authoritarian Chinese Communist Party does not practice or believe in democracy of any form. That word is anathema to its leaders, and they have shown that they would rather break their 1997 promise to allow democracy in Hong Kong than honor it.
However, the problem is not just China’s, it is also found in the KMT and that is the deja vu that must be addressed here.
The KMT not only lost Taiwan’s presidency in 2016 and this year, it also lost the legislature. Despite this, the KMT still cannot bring itself to reform.
To be sure, there are cries for change, and they ring out particularly among the young. However, the KMT’s old guard can neither see the writing on the wall nor source the root of the party’s troubles. Clinging to a lost paradigmatic identity, and still unused to democracy, the KMT veterans cannot let go of power and trust the democratic voices of their younger faction.
A different op-ed I wrote addressed those issues. This time it was after the KMT’s disastrous losses in the 2014 nine-in-one elections. The piece went over how the KMT was out of touch with the youth vote and changing times (“Now it is decision time for KMT,” Dec. 14, 2014, page 8). It still is.
Two years later, I again hit the same issues in an op-ed after the DPP’s 2016 presidential and legislative victories. I questioned the KMT’s very roots as well as the sincerity of its Deputy Secretary-General Alex Tsai (蔡正元), who now, four years later, is, not surprisingly, under investigation involving self-professed Chinese spy William Wang Liqiang (王立強) (“The root of the KMT’s identity crisis,” June 20, 2016, page 8).
Still, this inspired no change. Perhaps the KMT prefers not to read the Taipei Times.
That 2016 article posed four questions that the KMT must resolve, including the central question: How can the KMT maintain its belief in “one China” and pretend to balance that with a free and democratic Taiwan?
That democratic issue has remained unresolved. Wrapped in it is a central KMT position as it clings to its past identity.
This belief had by then found expression in the bogus “1992 consensus,” an expression that former Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) invented in 2000, eight years after 1992.
This crucial matter of the “1992 consensus” continues, but today, for the first time, it is finally being challenged by the KMT’s younger generations as they seek to revitalize their party.
In this, they are finding that the KMT old guard is of little help. Not only does it not help, but it also muddies the waters.
Ironically, for example, Ma has tried to lay the blame on the PRC. He recently stated that he felt that China had skewed the “1992 consensus,” because Beijing would always omit the words “with different interpretations” when uttering the phrase “one China.”
Ma seems to have forgotten that back in 2015, when he met with Chinese leader Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore, he was the one who publicly avoided stating in front of Xi that the KMT held to “one China with different interpretations.”
This is the issue that will not go away, because as KMT Central Advisory Committee member Chang Ya-ping (張雅屏) states, it is tied to the nation’s Constitution, whereas, on the other hand, KMT Youth League head Hsiao Ching-yan (蕭敬嚴) disagrees. For him, the roots of this expression of unification clearly conflict with a democratic Taiwan.
Constitutions can be changed, revised and amended. Taiwan’s dated 1947 Republic of China Constitution is in desperate need of an update. The KMT must face the fact that the only acceptable way that it could return to present authoritarian China would be in the garb of traitors.
Will the KMT rise to the task, stay in Taiwan, and revitalize itself in this matter? A democratic Taiwan will always need a strong and vibrant opposition party to progress.
Or will the coming years be deja vu all over again?
If the KMT cannot face this, then perhaps the TPP will come through for Taiwan, since it desires to be the nation’s second largest party.
It is still far too early to say, but the issues are now on the table and for the KMT, the central ones are constitutional and loyalty to Taiwan’s democracy.
Jerome Keating is a writer based in Taipei.
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath