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.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS