Little more than a year into President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) first term in office, and a year away from the next Taipei mayoral election, the nation is once again seeing political reporting and opposition slide toward farce and superficiality.
Two good examples illustrate the almost inevitable phenomenon in Taiwan’s political and electoral cycles, one international and one domestic. Internationally, we have seen China accuse Tsai and her Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration of “desinicization” (and other related, but more grammatically convoluted variants on the same theme) for their changes to the curriculum guidelines that truthfully define the Potsdam and Cairo declarations as non-treaty events, which had and continue to have, no legal bearing on the international status of Taiwan.
Aside from being an act of interference in the sovereignty of Taiwan, China’s ethno-racially charged accusation that the revisions represented a cultural provocation and former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) continuing to try to reify his interpretation of the events as immutable historical truths originate from a desperate desire to find something with which to smear Tsai.
Domestically, when the Environmental Protection Administration suggested that temples might cut down on the use of incense, firecrackers and burning ghost money in an effort to help protect the environment and reduce air pollution, social and mainstream media fed off each other to twist the story into the accusation that Tsai was effectively banning religion.
No amount of explanation could prevent members of more than 100 temples congregating in Taipei for a protest about a literal non-issue.
In the UK, during the summertime, when politics is slower than usual, people often categorize such minor outbreaks of misdirected or illogical grumbling as part of the “silly season” in the news cycle.
In Taiwan, with its 24-hour cable news networks scouring social media for controversy and contrarian opinions, silly season is part of the daily operating model of an industry that profits from a looped news cycle of social conflict, traffic accidents, gruesome criminality, the macabre, fluff pieces about animals, medical warnings and food scares.
However, one good thing did emerge from the protest — it drew crowds of bemused and curious onlookers keen to see for the first time so many often-competing temple processions converging.
The Ministry of Culture should encourage another United Annual Faith Bazaar for the same date next year and promote it abroad as the largest gathering of its kind in Asia.
It would certainly be a huge attraction both for local and international tourists. It should make it a 12-hour event from noon and invite other denominations such as the Hindu, Sikh, Jewish, Muslim and Christian communities, and Taiwan would have something truly diverse, inclusive and spectacular to singularly identify itself by on the world stage.
It would be a soft power win, which would contrast with China’s Islamophobic crackdown in occupied East Turkestan [Xinjiang] and its continued suppression of Christians and Falun Gong practitioners.
However, the underlying concern with such domestic outbreaks of misdirected ire and resentment (China’s policy-driven “warnings” aside, which are inevitable and should be responded to in kind) is that they represent a failure of political opposition that ultimately undermines the integrity and authority of the political process, a degradation of discourse and debate that the world has seen lead the UK to catastrophically vote itself out of the EU and, even worse, the US elect an ignorant, incompetent, mendacious, abusive, egotistical plutocrat as its president.
In Taiwan, formal party opposition to pension reforms and infrastructure spending bills has been both imbalanced and ineffective, providing the government and the public little in the way of constructive criticism.
In the ideological vacuum, media attention has focused on physical confrontations that have smacked more of overreaction and unwarranted hysteria than a justified existential plea for the government to reconsider its policies.
Physical protest is not new in Taiwan and is perhaps a defining feature of its democracy. The freedom to assemble and demand redress from the government is much prized in the nation and rightly so, especially given the history of the KMT dictatorship and the sterilized, Orwellian authoritarianism across the Taiwan Strait.
Big demonstrations, such as the Wild Lily Student Movement, the Sunflower movement and the “red shirt” rallies and sit-ins, have cemented themselves in the public’s mind and the nation’s history, but outside of pantomime theatrics in the legislature, protest has been frequent and has changed the debate over a range of issues such as nuclear power, media monopolization, police brutality, same-sex marriage rights, abuses within the military, environmental protection, Aboriginal rights and cross-strait agreements, to name just a few.
However, when opposition parties organize protests, there seems to be a corresponding decline in its perceived legitimacy among the public, as if it senses manipulation.
The DPP, having utilized this as a central mobilization tactic for decades, moved away from the strategy during the Sunflower movement, keeping at arm’s length and voicing support, but not bringing the party machine directly into the affair, thereby granting the student demonstration the autonomy it deserved. As a result, the public came to view the students’ actions with greater legitimacy.
Sadly, it appears that the KMT has yet to learn this lesson and its involvement in red shirt and anti-pension reform protests tainted the party as opportunistic, ignoble, petulant — willing to associate with unsavory and undemocratic voices and groups, even as they use democracy and freedom as an umbrella to shield them from criticism.
Despite the KMT having the second-largest number of seats in the legislature, being the richest political party and having the most extensive local political networks, it appears to be less effective than the New Power Party (NPP) in its attempts to hold the Tsai administration to account.
It is not that there is a lack of areas or issues on which to criticize the president and her government. The infrastructure bill was problematic and represented a massive amount of spending, some of which was questionable, and appeared to be more about building a physical legacy and the pork-barrel politics of building bridges to nowhere for votes, but the KMT’s failure to rationally discuss the policy and its budget stood in contrast with the NPP’s specific and targeted criticisms.
The KMT failed as an opposition party, because it was too busy opposing for the sake of opposition, perhaps proving that it still has not learned how not to be in power.
The KMT’s internal divisions, protracted messy leadership selections, aging party A-listers who cannot step aside for younger faces, unclear relationship to splinter organizations, through which it has laundered vast sums of state money, and its predictable promotion of at least one relative of either Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) or Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) as the next great political hope for the party signal an organization slowly decaying from within.
With China publicly declaring that the so-called “1992 consensus” does not mean that the Republic of China can have its own interpretation, even the KMT’s favorite cross-strait shibboleth has collapsed, and along with it the pretense that its “success” in China relations was anything other than just a series of private backroom deals stitched up between two Leninist Chinese nationalist parties against Taiwanese democracy and sovereignty.
Taiwanese and their democracy desperately want and need a functional, reasonable and serious opposition that can hold Tsai and her government to their election promises, while also working for the greater public and environmental good, and the interests of the nation as a whole.
If the KMT keeps failing to provide proportionate, principled and intelligent opposition, it cannot act surprised if its string of electoral disasters continues, perhaps eventually being replaced by another as the largest opposition party.
Ben Goren is an essayist, businessman and long-term resident in Taiwan.
The US intelligence community’s annual threat assessment for this year certainly cannot be faulted for having a narrow focus or Pollyanna perspective. From a rising China, Russian aggression and Iran’s nuclear ambitions, to climate change, future pandemics and the growing reach of international organized crime, US intelligence analysis is as comprehensive as it is worrying. Inaugurated two decades ago as a gesture of transparency and to inform the public and the US Congress, the annual threat assessment offers the intelligence agencies’ top-line conclusions about the country’s leading national-security threats — although always in ways that do not compromise “sources and methods.”
Let’s begin with the bottom line. The sad truth of the matter is that Beijing has trampled on its solemn pledge to grant Hong Kong a great deal of autonomy for at least fifty years. In so doing, the PRC ignored a promise Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) made to both Great Britain’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the wider world back in the early 1980s. This was at a time when Beijing, under Deng and his successors, appeared to be seeking an equitable accommodation with the West. I remain puzzled by China’s recent policy shift. Was it because Hong Kong was perceived
The recent removal of items related to Japanese Shinto culture from the Taoyuan Martyrs’ Shrine and Cultural Park has caused an uproar. The complex was built as a Shinto shrine by the Japanese during the colonial period, but was transformed into a martyrs’ shrine commemorating veterans of the Chinese Civil War after the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) retreated to Taiwan in 1949. Figurines of the Japanese sun goddess Amaterasu Okami were allowed into the shrine for a cultural event last year, attracting throngs of visitors to see the Shinto decorations and practices. However, some people accused the Taoyuan City Government of
The “US skeptic” and “Lai skeptic” arguments are gaining traction in Taiwanese political discourse, and might become a major campaign issue in the run-up to next year’s presidential election. The former says that the US cannot be trusted to defend Taiwan should China launch an invasion, while the latter says that Washington does not have the faith in Vice President William Lai (賴清德) — a self-described “pragmatic independence worker” who is seeking the top job — that it has in President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). There is precedent for concern after the way US President Joe Biden handled the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and