Taiwan’s democratic development and its self-determination are challenged not only by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), but also by the policies of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Unfortunately, there seems to be a strong focus on Ma’s low popularity and his competence as a president, rather than on the KMT as a party.
The KMT deserves more attention. Just because the KMT has been on the wrong side of democracy in the past and has enforced a Chinese mentality on the Taiwanese while dreaming of unification, it does not mean that the party is now handling these issues better. Indeed, it now seems to be finding new ways to achieve old agendas.
A reality check is advisable in this respect. Despite the fact that the KMT has a vast parliamentary majority, Taiwan’s democratic development has been held back over the past five years. Taiwan’s press freedom has deteriorated, as documented by the US-based Freedom House, and questionable legal cases have been filed against former government officials. Moreover, Ma’s involvement in attempts to unseat Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) constitutes a fundamental breach of the basic principles of the separation of power and checks and balances in a democracy.
The country even went as far as unjustly refusing entry to a German citizen in March — a decision which appears to have been politically motivated. His ban has been lifted. Given the background of this case and the fact that more Europeans are being banned from Taiwan, it is worrying that the KMT is reluctant to implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that Ma has signed and which protects foreigners’ political activities in Taiwan.
Moreover, during the past five years, the KMT parliamentary majority has led to a lowering of Taiwan’s international status. This has threatened Taiwan’s self-determination.
The Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement agreement has still not been submitted to the WTO and the nation’s symbolic participation in the WHO is dependent on China’s annual approval. Both of these factors have lowered Taiwan’s international status.
Additionally, the KMT has not reacted when Ma has said that China is not a foreign country and that cross-strait relations are not international relations. Chinese culture is undeniable a part of Taiwan, but the KMT government overemphasizes it. By doing this, Europe’s Taipei Representative Offices miss the opportunity to brand Taiwan’s culture as unique and to portray Taiwan as a modern society.
This is not only hurting Taiwan’s self-determination by diminishing Taiwan uniqueness; it may also harm Taiwanese industries.
Also, in Taiwan Chinese culture is increasingly promoted in the educational system, which may serve the old goal of unification.
The most dangerous people for the KMT are those who point out how the party’s policies damage Taiwan’s democratic development and challenge its myth of unification. These people are directly undermining the party’s belief in what the right path for the nation is. It is encouraging to observe that the number of Taiwanese concerned about the nation’s current development is growing.
It continues to be a mystery why unification and Chinese national identity are so highly valued among KMT politicians, when it should be obvious that related policies hurt Taiwan’s future and international status — and go against the general public trend which sees the population increasingly disassociating themselves from China.
Why is the KMT walking along these similar avenues, and where is the KMT taking Taiwan? Ma is obviously not the only problem.
Michael Danielsen is chairman of Taiwan Corner, an online Danish publication.
Election seasons expose societal divisions and contrasting visions about the future of Taiwan. They also offer opportunities for leaders to forge unity around practical ideas for strengthening Taiwan’s resilience. Beijing has in the past sought to exacerbate divisions within Taiwan. For Beijing, a divided Taiwan is less likely to pursue permanent separation. It also is more manipulatable than a united Taiwan. A divided polity has lower trust in government institutions and diminished capacity to solve societal challenges. As my co-authors Richard Bush, Bonnie Glaser, and I recently wrote in our book US-Taiwan Relations: Will China’s Challenge Lead to a Crisis?, “Beijing wants
Taiwan has never had a president who is not from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) or the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Could next year’s presidential election put a third-party candidate in office? The contenders who have thrown their hats into the ring are Vice President William Lai (賴清德) of the DPP, New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) of the KMT and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲). A monthly poll released by my-formosa.com on Monday showed support for Hou nosediving from 26 percent to 18.3 percent, the lowest among the three presidential hopefuls. It was a surprising
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has nominated New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) as its candidate for next year’s presidential election. The selection process was replete with controversy, mainly because the KMT has never stipulated a set of protocols for its presidential nominations. Yet, viewed from a historical perspective, the KMT has improved to some extent. There are two fundamental differences between the KMT and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP): First, the DPP believes that the Republic of China on Taiwan is a sovereign country with independent autonomy, meaning that Taiwan and China are two different entities. The KMT, on the
The presidential election is to be held concurrently with the legislative elections in January next year. While former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration was fraught with challenges, as he never commanded a legislative majority, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) did not have this problem. In her two terms in office, she has been able to carry out her vision and policies and thereby bear full responsibility for her performance. As a result, the public is not only waiting on tenterhooks to see the results of the presidential election, but also whether the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) will be able to hold
RSS