Taiwan’s democracy has been the object of some attention and has had its fair share of compliments over the past few years. Then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell, for example, in 2002 described Taiwan’s political transformation as a “successful story.”
Since the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government took office in May last year, however, questions have been raised over its commitment to safeguarding the most fundamental ideals that gird democracy: human rights and freedom of the press and speech.
Sober observers who care about Taiwan’s development have witnessed disturbing trends in the past year. Expressions such as “erosion of democracy” and “democratic regression” are becoming more frequent in news reports and analysis.
Rather than reacting in a defensive manner, the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) could profit from receiving these complaints with humility and asking itself whether these allegations have the potential to damage its credibility, both domestically and in the international community.
The latest incident to fuel doubts over the government’s approach to human rights and official propriety came on Sunday when five college students staged a protest at a temple in Tainan, where the president was scheduled to make an appearance.
Prior to Ma’s arrival, some of the students were assaulted by black-clad men who removed them from the immediate area. The students, who had broken no law, were later questioned by police.
Ma’s response was less than convincing, preferring to concentrate on the intolerance that was on display rather than the familiar police practice of applying undue pressure on legitimate protests.
The question must be asked again: Whether from the mouths of Chinese democracy activists or KMT politicians, how can Taiwan be remotely suitable as a model for a future Chinese democracy when police forces routinely abuse their powers, thumb their noses at the right to express dissent and intervene on behalf of one side of politics?
Politicians readily forget their words. Ma solemnly swore in his inauguration speech last May that his government would improve “Taiwan’s democracy, enrich its substance, and make it more perfect. To accomplish this, we can rely on the Constitution to protect human rights, uphold law and order, make justice independent and impartial and breathe new life into civil society.”
He added: “Taiwan’s democracy should not be marred by illegal eavesdropping, arbitrary justice and political interference in the media or electoral institutions. All of us share this vision for the next phase of political reform.”
These words are impressive and inspiring. But they are not being backed by concrete action, and without such practical support they remain items of lonely rhetoric.
Former presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) made positive contributions to the nation’s democratic record. Now that responsibility for protecting Taiwan’s democracy has passed to Ma, the question is whether this precious duty is within his capabilities.
The latest report from Freedom House says that Taiwan dropped 11 spots in its press freedom ranking for last year. Government and KMT officials have expressed little regret at this development, but their selective valuing of praise from overseas may turn out to be a little unwise.
For whether out of political interest or a sense of justice, the world is watching — not just Freedom House.
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS