Youth key to nation’s future
As the post-election dust begins to settle, one has to hope that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) bloodbath is going to bring about real change.
It was rather disappointing that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) apologized to only the KMT membership for the massive defeat. He should have apologized to the whole nation for his inept leadership and questionable political platform.
In fact, had this election taken place in Australia or the UK, Ma would have found himself out of a job.
Maybe that is what needs to happen.
If he is so concerned with the legacy he is set to leave behind, maybe he should consider resigning and allowing the seeds of real change to germinate and begin to grow.
However, acknowledging ones faults and making required changes is not big on his list of things to do.
Particularly noticeable during the election campaign was how the real faces of some old KMT members were finally presented in the true light of day.
I cannot recall an election that sparked this much divisiveness.
Former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) openly hoping for a “return to the good old days” was particularly scary. Good old days? When and where were they? Or is he wishing for an unimpeded return to power by the KMT where the party line “ruled,” and pockets were filled. Chan also found it fit to refer to his son’s opponent as a “bastard” during the election campaign.
All this coming from a man who most call, at best, “a collaborator with the PRC [People’s Republic of China]” and, at worst, “a traitor to Taiwan.”
The “return to the good old days” hopefully has been stopped for good. The nation does not need any more of the divisiveness that reared its ugly face.
Yes, differences of opinion are good for a nation and can spark constructive debate. However, personal attacks, race baiting and outright smear tactics have no place in the nation’s politics.
It is my hope that the new mayors of Taipei, Taichung and Kaoshiung, acknowledge the younger generation who made this change possible. They have ideas and need to be included in decisionmaking processes. To exclude them is done at one’s own peril. They will remember.
Tom Kuleck
Greater Taichung
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
The National Development Council (NDC) on Wednesday last week launched a six-month “digital nomad visitor visa” program, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported on Monday. The new visa is for foreign nationals from Taiwan’s list of visa-exempt countries who meet financial eligibility criteria and provide proof of work contracts, but it is not clear how it differs from other visitor visas for nationals of those countries, CNA wrote. The NDC last year said that it hoped to attract 100,000 “digital nomads,” according to the report. Interest in working remotely from abroad has significantly increased in recent years following improvements in
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
RSS