One of the more noticeable things about Mainland Affairs Council Chairwoman Tsai Ying-wen's (
There are a number of reasons for this. One of them, surely, is the almost theological obscurantism that characterizes the endless Taiwan/China controversy. How many of the even well-informed really understand the difference between the one-China principal and the one-China policy, or at that between the three no's, the four no's, the five no's the six assurances and the seven points.
Then again there is the long history of Taiwan governments saying one thing while doing the other. For instance, the Lee Teng-hui (
Chen and the DPP have attempted to clarify the situation but still we see a worrying timidity, as shown by the way that, after Chen's making a bold and widely supported statement on Aug. 3, both the government and the ruling party spent the entirety of last week trying to back away from the president's speech. Of course, given the cacophony of criticism occasioned by the president's telling the truth, there is perhaps an incentive to keep quiet. But this does not help anyone understand what Taiwan's position is.
Then of course there is the pro-China media, ever ready to unleash the bloodhounds on a scent provided by the opposition parties. The problem here is the opposition is extremely good at setting up what logicians call a straw man, that is arguing not against what somebody actually said but against a deliberate but plausible misinterpretation. Look at the arguments fielded by the media and the "pan-blue" camp last week about the "dangers" of a referendum. What the president said was not that Taiwan should hold a referendum on independence, but that any decision on unification had to be put to the vote, something the KMT, of course, still refuses to do. But our point here is that the straw man arguments beloved of the opposition and its media cronies tend also to be extremely distorting to outside perceptions of Taiwan's policy.
What the Tsai trip showed is that more opportu
nity is needed for those involved in the formulation of US policy to meet more authoritative voices from Taiwan. Trips such as Tsai's should be both more common and involve a greater number of high-ranking officials. In fact, regular annual talks between a group of Taiwanese officials, perhaps led by the premier, and their US counterparts would be a good way of making sure that Washington understands the real situation here in Taiwan and could give pointers as to what it liked and what it didn't about Taiwan's policy.
For this, of course, there would have to be a rethink on the US side about who it was willing to see and in what circumstances. The arrangement by which China can effectively dictate to the US government what officials from Taiwan it can officially see is a scandal that the US has put up with long enough. Even the Dalai Lama -- Beijing hate object that he is -- can visit the White House. Not so Taiwan's president or premier or in fact any government official from Taipei. If the US doesn't want to be surprised by Taiwan in the future it should do something to facilitate a better exchange of views and opinions.
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
The National Development Council (NDC) on Wednesday last week launched a six-month “digital nomad visitor visa” program, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported on Monday. The new visa is for foreign nationals from Taiwan’s list of visa-exempt countries who meet financial eligibility criteria and provide proof of work contracts, but it is not clear how it differs from other visitor visas for nationals of those countries, CNA wrote. The NDC last year said that it hoped to attract 100,000 “digital nomads,” according to the report. Interest in working remotely from abroad has significantly increased in recent years following improvements in
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or