Having spent the past three decades in Taiwan, I have watched firsthand the innumerable obstacles it overcame in shedding the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) one-party state to become a vibrant democracy. Within that time, I also had to listen to a fair share of panda-huggers, useful idiots and parachute journalists commenting on what they felt Taiwan should or should not do vis-a-vis that democracy and its main problem, China.
The struggle of those decades have presented a core reality that cannot be ignored.
First, Taiwan is a democracy and it follows the rule of law to protect that democracy. Because of this, former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) gracefully stepped down in 2000. He has been a KMT-appointed president and then Taiwan’s first president to be elected by the people. After him, the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) stepped down after his two four-year terms as president. Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) of the KMT did the same and President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) of the DPP is to follow suit. Do you see the pattern? All abide by the limits of the Constitution. None tried to cling to power.
Contrast that with recent developments in the nearby one-party states of Russia and China. Vladimir Putin has served as president and/or prime minister of Russia since 1999, making him the longest-serving leader of Russia since Joseph Stalin. When and if he will step down is uncertain.
Similarly, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is into a third unprecedented five-year term. He has been in power since 2013. He shows little inclination of stepping down.
Forget claims or excuses that Russia and China are “Marxist republics” — they are simply one-party capitalistic states with dictators who would not surrender power.
Why? It might be hubris, which makes them either think that they alone are best suited to rule, or it might be their having left a trail of enemies bent on retribution. What is more surprising is that such nations have difficulty finding a second competent person to become the new leader.
Why, after all their struggles, would any Taiwanese want to live under such a system?
Next, there is the matter of honesty. In Taiwan, a much-bandied phrase is the so-called “1992 consensus.” This fabricated consensus never happened. Lee, who was Taiwan’s president at that time, easily denied it. So why do some keep trying to resurrect and perpetuate it as if it is the only means by which Taiwan could talk to China, its rapacious neighbor on the other side of the Taiwan Strait?
Any negotiations based on that lie would never bear good fruit, especially since the lie justifies China’s claim to Taiwan. Taiwan did not free itself from about four decades of KMT lies that defended martial law and the White Terror to simply submit to a new lie.
In short, anyone who preaches the need for the “1992 consensus” is a charlatan. Therefore, presidential candidates should be asked: How would each candidate handle the false, rapacious claims of the bully next door as China constantly disturbs the peace in the Taiwan Strait as it infringes on Taiwan’s airspace? Further, it is China which similarly wants to make the South China Sea its mare nostrum.
Negotiations should never begin by letting the camel get its nose inside the tent.
Next is the matter of trust. Should China not be called out on its “Hong Kong promise”? Hong Kong was promised full democracy 20 years after the 1997 handover. Need one ask Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai (黎智英) how that has gone?
So what beliefs do Taiwan’s current candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency bring to the table regarding these matters?
I propose three basic questions as a type of litmus test:
First, would you go to war to defend Taiwan’s democracy? Second, would you call China out for its undemocratic treatment of Hong Kong and its disruptive aggression in the South China Sea? Third, how would you handle the long overdue matter of many of Taiwan’s sealed Stasi-like secret police files dating back to the 1980s and beyond and still cry for justice?
On the KMT team, of New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) and vice presidential candidate and Broadcasting Corp of China chairman Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), I speculate that they would indeed have trouble answering these questions. Hou has run a major city, but he also has the blood of Freedom Era Weekly magazine publisher Deng Nan-jung (鄭南榕) on his resume. Where does he stand on the “1992 consensus” and transitional justice?
His partner, Jaw, is worse. Being pro-unification, he formed the New Party in 1992 when Taiwanese began to elect their legislators for the first time.
Can a leopard change its spots? What made Jaw come in from the pro-unification cold? As vice president, Jaw would only be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Then there is the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) with Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) and his running mate, TPP Legislator and vice presidential candidate Cynthia Wu (吳欣盈). As mayor of Taipei for eight years, Ko has experience, but I struggle to find any stellar achievements from that period.
Ko seems to represent the Peter Principle of rising to the level of one’s incompetence. His alleged dealings with China on organ transplants leave unanswered questions and accusations. How would he handle these new challenges, especially after he has earned the nickname “chameleon” by claiming to be neither blue nor white, but deep green at heart. Could he call out China or would he turn red in dealing with Beijing?
Finally, of course, there is the DPP. Its presidential candidate, Vice President William Lai (賴清德), has experience as the nation’s vice president, as a legislator and a mayor. Those are good credentials and his stance on Taiwan’s democracy is evident enough.
His vice presidential pick, Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴), was a legislator and served as the nation’s unofficial ambassador to the US, Taiwan’s main ally. She is well acquainted with Taiwan’s internal and external situation. Both avoid needlessly provoking China. Need one say more?
China’s threats are ever-present. Xi spins the narrative to say that the “Taiwan question” cannot be put off forever. China’s economy is suffering, and he might indeed need a distraction to justify his unprecedented clinging to power.
The next four years will be crucial for Taiwan in the current post-COVID-19 world. It is time for Taiwanese to be clear-headed. Who will best support their hard-won democracy?
Jerome Keating is a writer based in Taipei.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS