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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS