There are too many variables -- both old and late-breaking -- to predict the result of today's presidential election: repression in Tibet and Chinese blustering on Taiwan, triumphal strutting by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou's (
Even so, there were signs as early as the legislative elections in January that things would not be so simple -- as in 2004. The sight of a grim-faced Ma standing with his KMT colleagues after wiping out the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in that poll was a clue: He must have known the result could be a double-edged sword.
The DPP has exploited fears of one-party rule for all they have been worth, even if the fear campaign has not been intelligently presented. The problem is not one party winning the game; rather, it is whether the organs of state can withstand partisan infection.
The biggest surprise of the campaign has been the wearing down of Ma's image from forthright to shifty -- literally, in the case of rapid changes in policy positions on unification talks, a common "Chinese" market and other hot button issues. Even with the tedious green card debate, Ma has been completely unable to shut the issue down.
Advertising by both parties has been largely negative, often preposterous. DPP candidate Frank Hsieh's (
Predictably, just when it seemed Hsieh had built up a head of steam, his habit of saying baffling and silly things let him down on Thursday when he suggested that the poll be postponed and the candidates start a sit-in to support Tibet. The impact on wavering voters could not have been helpful.
There has been widespread and justified criticism of the Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) administration, especially over corruption, though much of this criticism has been exaggerated, at times hysterical and all too often hypocritical. If he wins, Hsieh has a chance to correct Chen's errors and learn from the mistakes of the last eight years. But the DPP has shown little ability or interest in rejuvenating itself and seems unwilling to face up to its weaknesses and parochialisms. For Hsieh, the party is an albatross and may drive away the voters that gave Chen a second term.
If Ma wins this election, Taiwan will be in for a real show. Ma has proven himself to be a weak man, a political chameleon who does not reflect the core of the KMT; even his best efforts would not stop the reimposition of a professional network of kickbacks and partisan thuggery throughout not only the legislature but also the executive and perhaps the military and judiciary.
The KMT has campaigned for eight years to improve the cross-strait environment for business, but this necessary debate has been overwhelmed by its attacks on the independence of administrative agencies and populist ratbaggery on the streets and in the legislature. The KMT apparatus -- particularly party headquarters and the legislative caucus -- must be salivating at the prospect of returning to an era when party-state divisions were merely ceremonial.
All of this amounts to a degradation of democratic institutions that will make the DPP government's sins seem like the flailing of amateurs. But this is the KMT's paradox: Prematurely close engagement with China requires this degradation.
In the end, voters are left with a reversal of the choice that resulted in Chen's accidental presidency in 2000: The KMT stands for radical and possibly damaging political and economic change, despite its late words of caution, while the DPP offers another four years of what has become the domestic "status quo": modest economic growth, legislative gridlock and identity wars.
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