The invitations to attend two historical presidential inaugurations have no doubt been the highlights of my work in Asia for the Friedrich Naumann Foundation. On Feb. 25, 1998, I had the great honor to witness, from a close distance, the historic inauguration of Kim Dae-jung (金大中) as the 15th president of the Republic of Korea. My mind drifted back to that splendid morning at Yoido Plaza (汝矣島廣場), in front of the National Assembly Building, as I attended the equally joyful celebrations in Taipei for the official inauguration of Chen Shui-bian
In a way, the transition from one presidency to another is always a special, historic occasion. The presidential inaugurations in South Korea in 1998, and now in Taiwan, have an additional epoch-making dimension.
The coming to power of Kim and Chen symbolize democratic triumphs of a special sort: In both cases oppositionists came to power after a democratic contest. It also took some five decades of democratic struggles before the respective authoritarian regimes gave in to the popular pressure and created political conditions that then led to the democratic transition of power.
Both men have spent long years of their lives confronting tyranny. They (as many others with them) prove false the erroneous assumption that Asian values and democratic principles don't fit together.
similar ideas
It is noteworthy that the two presidents differ in many ways, though they also share a wide set of democratic and liberal political values and principles. Listening to Chen's inaugural address and reading the text that was distributed later on, reminded me quite a lot of Kim's inauguration speech, which I continue to cherish as one of the most impressive liberal political documents I have come across in Korea.
I find it appealing to compare Kim's and Chen's inaugural speeches, and thereby to highlight some points referring to domestic reform issues in the programs of the two politicians. This is all the more valuable, as in the case of Chen's speech, since the international media concentrated their reports almost exclusively on his references to the so-called "one China" issue, thus omitting in all practical terms all he said about his democratic and progressive domestic reform agenda.
Comparing the two texts one almost gets the impression that Chen's ghost writers used Kim's presentation as an orientation. Chen starts off with the pledge that his government will be a government for all people. Kim uses the expression "government of the people."
No doubt, both statesmen were inspired by Abraham Lincoln's epochal and much quoted Gettysburg Address, which said that "government of the people, by the people, and for the people should not perish from the earth.
In their speeches, both the Korean and the Taiwanese presidents stress the primary and crucial importance of democratic political reform: "Political reform must precede everything else," said Kim. However, looking back at the achievements of the South Korean leader so far, one must remark that it is in this field that he has been least effective.
Political reform and the fight against corruption are also the first priorities of Taiwan's new president. Eliminating "black gold" will be his "topmost" priority, said Chen amid the cheers of his listeners.
Kim and Chen also agree that the further democratization of their respective societies must go hand-in-hand with the strengthening of local autonomy -- "We want to realize the spirit of local autonomy, where the local and central governments share resources and responsibilities, where the central government will not do what the local governments can do," are the words Chen chose to stress the importance of political decentralization. Kim's wording of the same basic concept was the following: "A large portion of the power and functions that have been by now concentrated in the central government will be transferred to the private sector and local autonomous governments.
In their speeches, Chen and Kim not only unfolded a blueprint for a more democratic political order, both also applied liberal terminology to express their economic ideas. Since Kim came to power it has become much easier for me to explain, in my discussions with Korean friends and associates, what "liberalism" means. The shortest and, therefore, arguably best definition may be found in Kim's inauguration speech: "Democracy and the market economy are two sides of one coin." That the government should keep out of the economy as much as possible and let the market work is also Chen's conviction: The responsibility of modern government, he said in his speech, is to raise administrative efficiency, improve the domestic investment environment, and maintain financial order and stock market stability, so as to allow economic development to move toward full liberalization and internationalization with fair competition.
Focus on China
Toward the end of his speech, Chen used the single phrase everyone was waiting for: "one China." But he did this in a manner that did not provoke jubilation in Beijing. Chen expressed his hope that the leaders on both sides possess enough wisdom and creativity to deal with the question of a future "one China," but he then clarified that this for Taiwan could only be done by upholding the principles of democracy and parity. Democracy and parity are two principles the Chinese communists abhor just as much as "the devil detests the holy water," to use an idiomatic expression from my own language.
In order not to antagonize the PRC, whose support in the dealings with the North is considered of crucial importance in Seoul, South Korea was represented with an unofficial political delegation at the Chen's inauguration ceremony. I spotted some National Assemblymen and was happy to meet an old political friend from Seoul, who for many years has served as a close associate and advisor of President Kim.
Expressing his personal views, this Korean emphasized the historic meaning of Chen's accession to power, not only for the Taiwanese, but for all Chinese. In 10 years time the Korean expert said, democratic Taipei, and not Beijing, will be the political center for the whole of China.
This scenario sounds audacious today. It would definitely presuppose a liberal solution to the "one China" issue. On the Taiwanese side of the Strait, the foundations for this kind of a solution have just been triumphantly laid.
Ronald Meinardus is the resident representative in Seoul of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, the German foundation for liberal politics, which enjoys close links with Germany's Free Democratic Party.
Within Taiwan’s education system exists a long-standing and deep-rooted culture of falsification. In the past month, a large number of “ghost signatures” — signatures using the names of deceased people — appeared on recall petitions submitted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) against Democratic Progressive Party legislators Rosalia Wu (吳思瑤) and Wu Pei-yi (吳沛憶). An investigation revealed a high degree of overlap between the deceased signatories and the KMT’s membership roster. It also showed that documents had been forged. However, that culture of cheating and fabrication did not just appear out of thin air — it is linked to the
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
China’s partnership with Pakistan has long served as a key instrument in Beijing’s efforts to unsettle India. While official narratives frame the two nations’ alliance as one of economic cooperation and regional stability, the underlying strategy suggests a deliberate attempt to check India’s rise through military, economic and diplomatic maneuvering. China’s growing influence in Pakistan is deeply intertwined with its own global ambitions. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship project of the Belt and Road Initiative, offers China direct access to the Arabian Sea, bypassing potentially vulnerable trade routes. For Pakistan, these investments provide critical infrastructure, yet they also
RSS