To alleviate concern that the legislative majority held by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) indicates a step backward for Taiwan's democracy, KMT vice presidential candidate Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) has cited Singapore, ruled by a party with an absolute majority.
Siew said Singapore is a worthwhile model. KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (
Singapore is not a democracy. The People's Action Party (PAP) has been the ruling party since 1957, before Singapore became independent. The PAP holds 91 of 94 seats in the Singaporean parliament, despite winning only 66.6 percent of the vote.
The government controls public discourse, partly through two major media groups, while the Internal Security Department can detain dissidents indefinitely.
The day after elections in 2006, for example, people who opposed the PAP were arrested.
The situation is much like that in Taiwan during the Martial Law era, when the government relied on emergency measures to stifle all forms of dissent.
The unity of party and state in Singapore is reflected in the business world. The PAP, through Temasek Holdings, which did not publish financial statements until 2004, controls key sectors: phone company SingTel, Singapore Airlines, the mass rapid transit system, the port, global shipping company Neptune Orient Lines, Singapore Power, the Keppel Group and Raffles Hotel.
Temasek Holdings owns nearly half the market's value on the Singapore stock exchange.
The Singaporean government also invests in foreign firms through the mysterious Government of Singapore Investment Corp, which never publishes financial statements and manages property worth more than US$100 billion.
The enormous benefits are exclusively for those at the top of the party and government tree.
It is also because of this unfair system that Singapore has the largest gap between rich and poor among developed nations.
The income ratio between the highest and lowest one-fifth of the population is 31.9, with a Gini coefficient of 0.522 in 2005, compared with Taiwan's ratio of about 6 with a Gini coefficient of 0.339 in 2006. The gap is therefore much larger in Singapore.
Human rights, freedom, democracy and equality are basic, universal human values -- yet these values are being suppressed in Singapore. Do Taiwanese need to make such a sacrifice?
The authoritarian regimes of former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew (李光耀) and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (李顯龍) share too many features with those of dictators Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) for Singapore to be worthy of such uncritical praise.
Tseng Wei-chen is a researcher in the Department of History at National Taiwan Normal University. Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS