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
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS