When my plane lifted off at the end of March 2000, 10 days after the presidential election, the Taiwan that receded below was filled with exhilaration and anticipation. Even the demonstrators outside the KMT headquarters had accepted the legitimacy of Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) election. Despite pressures from China, Taiwan looked forward to a new and exciting future. When I returned for the first time about a month ago, the lack of morale both in Taipei and the countryside shocked me. Perhaps such high expectations could only lead to disappointment, but people repeatedly mentioned the stock market, land prices, unemployment and concerns about China both economically and politically.
How does one explain the change from exhilaration to frustration? One explanation is the lack of maturation of Taiwan's political institutions. I see both the government and the opposition struggling to learn their new roles. The government has failed to communicate adequately with the public. It has failed, for example, to explain the importance of foreign factors that affect the coun-try's economic difficulties.
Nor has it successfully explained to the public that lower real estate prices make it easier for young people to buy housing or that a lower stock market may reflect the true value of shares and reduce the likelihood of a "burst bubble." A properly functioning stock market contributes to national development, something the former "Republic of Casino" market noticeably failed to do.
In democracies, especially parliamentary ones, we often refer to the "loyal opposition." While opposition leaders may disagree, I sense that too often they have lacked "loyal" content in their activities. Rather than consider the national interest, they have given partisan interests priority irrespective of the damage caused.
The Fourth Nuclear Power Plant saga appears to typify the failures of both government and opposition. The government failed to convey to the populace any sense of alternative strategies or plans, or of the huge costs of using nuclear energy. It failed to educate the people on key public policy issues which could have enhanced support for its decisions.
In addition, the government does not appear to have ordered the Taiwan Power Company (台電) to develop alternative strategies. And it does not seem to have considered adequately the potential constitutional issues that led to a Council of Justices' interpretation. The opposition, some of which had expressed concern about nuclear energy when in power, simply used the issue to beat the government about the head. In doing this, it proved successful. But the costs have been high. The public believes the plant was essential for economic development and has lost an important opportunity to consider alternative energy sources let alone conservation of resources.
In building its democracy, Tai-wan faces several problems. One is the maturation and understanding of its office holders. It is to be hoped that, as Taiwan enters its second year of post-KMT government, both the administration and opposition will implement lessons learned after the first difficult year.
Another problem is the institutional and constitutional framework inherited from the past. The mixture of the presidential and parliamentary systems has many drawbacks and few of the benefits of either system. Also, there are few overseas examples to guide the behavior of the various political actors. Many commentators talk about "coalition government," but forget that under parliamentary systems, the ministers in coalition governments are all parliamentarians who have a stake in keeping the government in power. The legislators elected on Dec. 1 will have no such incentives.
One optimistic development has been the use of extra-institutional frameworks to bring about multi-party consensus and constitutional reform. The Economic Development Advisory Conference follows on the precedents of the National Affairs Conference convened by President Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) in 1990 and other meetings in reaching new levels of institutional and public policy development.
Until Taiwan's politicians and political institutions mature, such extra-institutional meetings, where national interest is given clear priority, may be the way for an immature, divided democracy to meet the many challenges facing it.
Bruce Jacobs holds the chair of Asian Languages and Studies at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
On the eve of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a statement that provoked unprecedented repudiations among the European diplomats in Taipei. Chu said during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that what President William Lai (賴清德) has been doing to the opposition is equivalent to what Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, referencing ongoing investigations into the KMT’s alleged forgery of signatures used in recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party legislators. In response, the German Institute Taipei posted a statement to express its “deep disappointment and concern”
RSS