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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS