As the opposition Australian Labor Party swept to power in the federal election against the incumbent Liberal-National coalition, party leader Kevin Rudd was poised to become the 26th prime minister of Australia, ending 11 years of conservative rule.
This result is a useful reference for Taiwan, as it will hold legislative and presidential elections next year.
First, "striving for economic progress" is a very boring slogan for Australian voters.
After 11 years in power, the ruling party, led by Prime Minister John Howard, has achieved significant economic growth and brought Australia's unemployment rate to its lowest level since the 1960s.
In addition, the Australian government even cut taxes because of a fiscal surplus in 2005 and cut them again last year.
Although this was close to a miracle for a Western welfare state, prosperity didn't help the Howard administration win the election.
The reality, however, is that Australian voters care more about politics that one would think.
Looking at Taiwan, the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) strategy of using a referendum for UN membership constitutes a more innovative idea.
In comparison, the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) call for improving the domestic economy, its focus on previous KMT economic achievements and its criticism of the DPP leaders' character is akin to the Australian Labor Party's criticism of Rudd's occasional rashness and lack of leadership experience.
In other words, although the KMT is the opposition party, its campaign strategies so far have been very similar to those adopted by the Australian ruling coalition.
It will be very interesting to see if the KMT heads down Howard's path in next year's elections.
Based on figures alone, Taiwan's economic performance in recent years has been no worse than Australia's.
However, the KMT has constantly complained that the economy was dragging and has argued that the only remedy would be to open direct links with China, promote investment in China and lift the ban on Chinese tourism.
If a similar situation had occurred in Australia, it would quickly have become a target of media censure.
Aside from the fact that these are groundless exaggerations (Taiwan trade with China has made tremendous progress in recent years), no Australian politician would believe that betting a nation's economic progress solely on one country is a politically viable option -- even if that country happens to be the US, a country with a common language and strong bonds of alliance.
In fact, Howard's attitude of blindly following in the US' footsteps was one of the direct causes of his failure.
Failure was not the result of heavy casualties following Australia's decision to join the US in the invasion of Iraq -- only one soldier was killed -- or depleted national resources -- there were tax reductions -- but purely because certain Australian intellectuals believe that a country must diversify its foreign relations rather than emphasize or boast of specific ties with a single country.
Doing so, they know, impairs a nation's dignity and hurts its reputation, especially when that one ally is authoritarian and hostile toward other countries. Taiwan should learn from this experience as it moves closer to the elections.
Bill Chang is a doctoral candidate at the University of New South Wales.
Translated by Ted Yang
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
RSS