As the presidential election draws closer, it is odd that a once-autocratic political party with blood on its hands and forced out of power could win favor and find itself compatible with democracy.
Taiwan is a unique nation for allowing such a thing to happen. After witnessing the first transition of power in 2000, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) not only “exiled” former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and regained power in 2008, its presidential ticket seems to have not fallen far behind the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) presidential ticket in polling this time.
It is tragic that Taiwan’s democratic system does not possess a healthy multiparty system; that the KMT has become perhaps the only possibility for a transition of power. Its historical baggage has pro-China written into its DNA, from Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) “recovery of mainland China,” to endorsement of China’s so-called “1992 consensus,” to talk of a cross-strait service and trade agreement: The KMT has never wavered in its pro-China stance to maximize its interests.
It is unhealthy that the only choice is between a pro-Taiwan party and a party capitalizing on China. Although the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and its chairman and presidential candidate, Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), have risen to power due to antipathy toward the DPP-KMT rivalry, Ko’s evasiveness on cross-strait policy and his “blue-white alliance” proposal has made the TPP a second KMT — seeking dividends under the false promise of cross-strait peace.
This is the biggest predicament for Taiwanese: an inability to agree with the KMT’s pro-China stance to sell out Taiwan, yet not given a second pro-Taiwan political party to endorse. As a result, the DPP is often labeled as turning Taiwan into a one-party system, and always faces obstruction in its affairs with China.
Taiwan’s democracy needs three things:
First is solidarity against a common enemy. Taiwanese must vote for a presidential candidate and party that seek to safeguard democracy and freedom, especially one that vows to establish close ties with other democraties and bolster national defense. A party that still believes in the ficticious “1992 consensus” is not an option. The collapse of the blue-white alliance plans and Hon Hai Precision Industry Co founder Terry Gou’s (郭台銘) decision to bow out of the race should have shown everyone how influential Chinese interference is. Belief in a “one China” peace treaty or restarting the cross-strait service trade agreement is delusional.
Second is the promotion of social benefits and policies. As internal affairs and social issues have been a chink in the DPP’s armor as opposed to its success in diplomacy, it would have to keep introducing plans such as private university subsidies, rental subsidies or minimum wage legislation. It would have to reinforce social security and design an elderly-friendly environment. It would be hard-pressed to implement immediate reform, but its presidential candidate should seek cooperation with civil groups and academics to achieve it.
Third is to strive for a healthy multiparty system.
The priority is how to keep Taiwan’s democracy from corruption when there is not an alternative pro-Taiwan party. So far, the best option is to empower a pro-Taiwan party, while civil groups play overseer. In this way, they could supervise the DPP in domestic terms while uniting with the DPP to counter China in diplomacy. Only by allowing pro-Taiwan parties and civil groups to supervise could a second pro-Taiwan political party be nurtured to bring about a healthy political system. Establishing a fair and impartial system for newly developed parties would be a good start.
Every Taiwanese has the duty to find a resolution to Taiwan’s predicament. It is up to them to vote for a pro-Taiwan party and ensure that it has the momentum and incentive to keep improving. Taiwanese owe it to themselves, to their predecessors who fought for its democracy and to the world.
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS