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.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS