Nothing to Hide

Would the Leader Please Stand Up?

One of the greatest challenges of democracy is giving voice to those sections of society that are most disadvantaged. A successful democratic mechanism must strive to combat marginalization and provide every citizen and social group with the tools to protect their rights and interests.

For this reason, scrutinizing society's treatment of its most marginalized members is an excellent method of gauging progress in democratization.

In this context, the eviction of low-income Aboriginal groups from choice property is hardly a compliment to the system. The Sijhou community of Sindian (新店), Taipei County, is just one example. Sijhou residents are being forced from their homes and there is little they can do about it. Although their homes lie on a designated flood zone, the land will soon be rezoned as safe for development thanks to the construction of a retention wall. But by the time the land is designated as safe, Sijhou's residents will have lost their fight.

Likewise, the government's treatment of another marginalized group of society, sex workers, reveals the chauvinism still ingrained in the system. Under Article 80 of the Social Order and Maintenance Act (社會秩序維護法), it is illegal to sell sex services, but not illegal to pay for them.

Prostitutes themselves say the criminalization of sex work has left them in the hands of organized crime and robbed them of legal recourse against physical abuse and of the option of turning down customers who refuse to wear a condom. The measure increased their hardship without empowering them with the tools to pursue a different livelihood.

That is the message that hundreds of sex workers and supporters took to the streets on Saturday in Taipei in a call to the presidential candidates.

Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) responded by signing an agreement to decriminalize prostitution within two years of being elected, an act the protesters welcomed and hoped was not an election ploy.

His Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) rival, Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), responded by declining to take a stance without first gauging public opinion. As president, Ma said, he would let public consensus steer the matter.

This was also Ma's response to a question on legalizing gay marriage in last month's debate, when he dodged taking a position for or against gay unions by saying public consensus must decide.

Ma seems to have missed the second challenge of democracy. A government mechanism that seeks to promote a society based on the ideals of equality and human rights has a responsibility to push for the interests of all sections of society -- even when this contradicts public opinion. This is the case both here and abroad, in fledgling and mature democracies.

If Ma believes in promoting the values of human rights and democracy, he must be willing to take a stand on issues that involve combating marginalization and intolerance. In Sweden, selling sex services is not punishable, but purchasing them is. This is based on the view that threatening sex workers with prison does little more than further marginalize a struggling section of society.

The next president should be prepared to push for measures to put an end to trafficking, gangster control of brothels, physical abuse of prostitutes, violation of their labor rights and the underlying issues of poverty, drug abuse and social inequality that have repeatedly been linked to prostitution.

A presidential candidate who believes that promoting social progress entails nothing more than gauging public opinion is not fit to take on the burdens of leadership.

Taipei Times Editorial, March 12, 2008.

How Would Democracy in China Play Out?

By Wang Dan 王丹, translated by Ted Yang

China might be under CCP control today, but that does not mean that the party necessarily represents the future of the country.

The results of the presidential election will have a significant impact on the development of cross-state relations. But regardless of whether Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) or his Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) counterpart Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) wins the election, both candidates should pay attention to the effect on Chinese democratization and cross-strait relations.

The next 10 years will be a critical period in China's development. A couple factors are especially important.

First, as nationalism continues to ferment, the authorities will engage in the careful manipulation of public opinion.

Second, the strength of China, and especially its military, will continue to grow.

If it keeps growing at the current speed, the risk that China will attack Taiwan will increase.

However, a factor that cannot be determined is the nature of the change of the Chinese state over the next 10 years.

Even if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) insists on highly centralized rule, modern governments will make such rule more difficult, weakening state control of society.

Thus it is important to note to what degree civil society in China will influence the Chinese government in the next 10 years.

The question of whether or not China will democratize is key for cross-strait relations.

It therefore is logical for Chinese democratization to be at the center of Taiwan's policy on China.

This focus provides a long term view of the situation and is in the best interests of the nation.

First, pushing for Chinese democracy helps improve Taiwan's international image.

Taiwan is inferior to China economically, militarily and diplomatically.

Taiwan is only superior to China in its form of government. By upholding democracy, Taiwan can manifest its unique value and gain support and sympathy from the international community -- a strategic advantage over China.

Second, the US would also support a push for Chinese democracy. Since US President George W. Bush took office, and especially during US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's term, the US has put a heavy emphasis on promoting democracy all over the world. If Taiwan actively promotes the democratization of China, there will only be praise from the US.

Finally, a push for democracy in China could also gain the support of the Chinese people.

China might be under CCP control today, but that does not mean that the party necessarily represents the future of the country.

Visionary politicians should focus on the budding civil society in China. If Taiwan can offer support for China's democratization, it might win over public opinion there.

No matter where Taiwan is headed, it is vital that it wins the goodwill of the Chinese people.

Wang Dan is a member of the Chinese democracy movement.

House Gives Taiwan Full Backing

By Charles Snyder, staff reporter in Washington, D.C.

OUTSHINING THE TORCH: One clause criticizing China's oppression of Taiwan was removed from the final wording of a resolution, sparking heated debate on the floor

The US House of Representatives on Tuesday gave landslide approval to a resolution praising Taiwan's democracy and upcoming presidential election, urging the countries of the world to send delegations to Taiwan to witness the election.

By a 490-1 vote, the House endorsed the resolution that was approved by the House Foreign Affairs Committee late last month in the committee's first legislative vote this year.

The only vote against the proposal came from Ron Paul, a libertarian who until recently was a candidate for the Republican nomination for US president.

Five House members rose to speak in favor of the resolution, including two co-chairpersons of the Congressional Taiwan Caucus, Steve Chabot and Shelley Berkley.

"This resolution sends the right message at the right time," Chabot said. "As one of a very few democracies in Asia, Taiwan should be recognized for its courage and commitment to allow its citizens to choose its future."

He contrasted Taiwan with undemocratic China, citing Beijing's "abysmal human rights record, flouting of the rule of law, religious persecution and warehous[ing of] political prisoners."

Howard Berman, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee, said while introducing the resolution on the floor that "Taiwan's political system has evolved into one of the strongest democratic systems in Asia," following the demise of martial law and one-party "authoritarian dictatorship that failed to respect basic human rights."

"Today, Taiwan is a flourishing, multiparty democracy that respects human rights, upholds the rule of law and holds competitive elec-tions," he said.

"The United States' relationship with Taiwan speaks to the great importance of democracy in our foreign policy ... it is Taiwan's development of democracy that underpins the strong US-Taiwan friendship that we enjoy today," he said.

Michael Bilirakis, speaking for the opposition Republicans, called Taiwan "a shining example for other Asian states struggling with the introduction of representative forms of government and the rule of law. Taiwan's free elections, however, have the greatest impact on those who are still yearning to breathe free in the vast Chinese mainland."

He called Taiwan's democracy a "beacon of hope for those still suffering under the oppression on the communist Chinese mainland."

"Taiwan's democracy is a torch which shines ever brighter, far outshining the Olympic torch of the Chinese regime, which hopes this year to use sports to achieve propaganda victory," he said.

A dispute broke out during the deliberation on the Foreign Affairs Committee's decision to remove from the original resolution a clause that asserts that Taiwan "faces threat and intimidation from neighboring China."

That clause was deleted at the insistence of the chairman of the committee's Asia and Pacific subcommittee, delegate Eni Faleo-mavega of American Samoa.

Chabot bemoaned the committee's action, saying: "I'm disappointed that the strong language contained in the introduced version of the bill, which referenced the acts of intimidation and pressure by China, was eliminated. It is unrealistic to believe that these elections are not of concern to China."

Bilirakis agreed.

"Taiwan's young democracy faces constant military threat and intimidation from neighboring China," he said, echoing the deleted clause's language.

"Yet, in spite of these belligerent threats and the constant saber-rattling by Beijing, Taipei has continued to stand tall for freedom," he said.

Faleomavega, who has often taken a pro-Beijing stance in committee matters, defended his action.

Noting his two trips to Taipei over the past year, he said: "I can assure my colleagues that elections are in full swing in Taiwan, with no intimidation from the People's Republic of China."

"I think it is important for [congressional] members to observe first-hand the [Taiwanese electoral] process and meet the leaders in Taiwan and Beijing before being so quick in condemning the People's Republic of China," he said.

He said the resolution did not address the issue of the referendum on UN membership, adding: "I do not believe it would be in the best interest of our country to support the position of Taiwan's current administration, which has attempted to push for independence, which is contrary to the US position on one-country-two-systems [sic]."

It should be 409-1, with 1 Present and 17 NV (Not Voting). The bill/resolution is:

H CON RES 278 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 5-Mar-2008 12:18 PM
QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended
BILL TITLE: Supporting Taiwan’s fourth direct and democratic presidential elections in March 2008

The URL for the bill/resolution is http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll092.xml

The Direction of Taiwanese Politics

By Stephen Yates

The dramatic results of last month's legislative elections and anticipation for next month's presidential election have sparked a great deal of commentary on the implications for the future of the country. Much of the commentary is highly personalized, critiquing the current president and assessing the dramatic change of fortunes among top political leaders.

Most international observers anticipate a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) victory in the presidential election and perhaps an enduring majority favoring KMT rule in Taiwan, bringing with it an era of greater domestic and cross-strait stability. There are of course no guarantees in politics. You can never tell what might happen on a particular president's watch or how well he will govern. And, as US primary candidates are learning, there is only one poll that counts -- the actual vote.

Taiwan's presidential race is a contest between two personalities, both representing a break from the current administration, and each trying to bridge divisions within his own party. No matter who wins, a form of divided government is likely to continue in Taiwan, but different from the form that dominated President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) two terms in office.

If Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) surprises experts and wins the presidency, he will benefit from rejuvenated enthusiasm within his party, but will face the challenge of governing with an opposition supermajority in the legislature and perhaps shaping the composition of his Cabinet. If the KMT again loses the presidency, despite its significant standing in the legislature, it will likely have to face up to a dramatic reassessment of the party's leadership, identity and approach to working with an opposition president.

Many experts anticipated that such a reassessment or realignment might occur following the 2000 election, especially with Chen's appointment of a KMT premier, but instead a more raw form of partisan competition ensued.

If, as many anticipate, KMT candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wins the presidency, he will benefit from an era of unified party control of government not seen in Taiwan since the early 1990s. But the biggest question he will face is how long party unity will be sustained.

It appears that intense dislike for Chen, more than Ma's management skills, is the glue holding the KMT coalition together. If Ma becomes president, he may benefit from the marginalization of the opposition party, but be surprised by bureaucratic and political divisions within his party.

The Republic of China Constitution offers no assurance of presidential authority. It was written for an era of one-party rule dominated by a single leader. But is Ma a leader of that stature? The KMT premier, legislative speaker, party chairman and perhaps others could very plausibly claim to control significant portions of the party's and the country's political agenda. It is reasonable to question whether KMT leaders really have broad consensus on economic security strategy, national defense (military and diplomatic) and personnel appointments. Thus, even with nominal party unity across the government, a new form of divided government is quite plausible.

In fact, more than the ups and downs of the DPP and Chen, KMT unity and disunity has been the dominant factor in Taiwanese politics for the last decade, and will remain so for some time to come. The divisions among former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰), and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) directly contributed to Chen's surprising victory in 2000 with only 39 percent of the vote. The struggle for leadership and identity of the party left the KMT just shy of victory in 2004, even with Lien and Soong on the same ticket.

The traditional KMT base, dominant when unified, turned out for the election last month and seems likely to do so again next month. But how long will the unity last before competing agendas within the party once again divide it to where the opposition has a real chance to compete? It certainly will not be sustained if the KMT again loses the presidency. And even with victory, supermajorities bring high expectations and great pressure, powerful enough to break strong leaders and big parties.

Finally, as Chen's term comes to an end, it is natural to look back on his tenure and attempt to put it in some form of historical context. It will require the passage of time to allow for objective assessment of the Chen presidency. Above all else, Chen appears driven by the mission of ensuring that no man, party or outside power is ever again able to assert control over Taiwan's people without their free and direct consent.

Twenty years from now, if Taiwan's democratic way of life is preserved, the major political parties continue to reform and remain competitive and the people of Taiwan have practiced when and how to effectively use their right to hold a referendum, then Chen's tenure as president may be seen in a very different context.

What is certain is that Chen will go down in history as the first to govern Taiwan in an era of divided government. No one imagined in 2000 just how divided it was and would remain throughout Chen's time in office. Opposition leaders vigorously challenged the legitimacy of Chen's election victories, especially in 2004, and engaged in high-profile and highly partisan cross-strait diplomacy. These actions undermined the stature and influence of the office of president. A case can be made that many difficulties were brought upon Chen by his own conduct, but it is also true that the structural and partisan obstacles he faced would have challenged the most gifted politician.

Whichever party wins next month, one can only hope that the outcome will be accepted as legitimate and opponents will not again allow partisan differences, personal agendas or the agony of electoral defeat to unreasonably obstruct the agenda of the next directly elected president.

Stephen Yates is president of DC Asia Advisory, a Washington-based consulting firm, and former deputy assistant to US vice president Dick Cheney for national security affairs.

Why China is Afraid of Nobodies

By Guy Sorman

EVER SINCE THEIR reinvention by Pierre de Coubertin, the Olympic Games have been politicized. They first took place in 1896 in Athens in order to embarrass the Turks still occupying northern Greece. The Berlin Games in 1936 celebrated the triumph of Nazi ideology. The Seoul Games in 1988 opened the door to South Korea's democratization.

This summer's Olympic Games in Beijing will be no less political, but will they resemble those in Berlin or Seoul? Will they mark the apotheosis of an authoritarian regime or the beginning of its demise?

Many optimistic observers of China, often mollified by their close relations with the Communist regime, bet on a soft transition from despotism toward an open society, but recent events don't support such a benign interpretation. Since the beginning of this year, repression of human rights activists, lawyers and bloggers has been harsher than ever.

The exact number of democratic dissidents who have been incarcerated, or worse, is unknown. There is no way to account for unseen victims, or why some are condemned to death and shot. We don't know how many are sent without trial to "re-education centers." In the absence of reliable statistics, let us focus on two iconic figures of China's pro-democracy movement: Hu Jia (胡佳) and Chen Guancheng (陳光誠).

On Dec. 27, 20 armed police officers violently arrested Hu in front of his wife and their two-month-old baby, acting as if he could offer real resistance. But Hu is a diminutive young man of 34 who suffers from a severe liver ailment. Moreover, he is a committed believer in non-violence, an admirer of the Dalai Lama, a disciple of the Mahatma Gandhi and a sincere Buddhist.

Why is the mighty Chinese Communist Party (CCP) deploying all of its powers to kidnap -- no word better describes what happened -- such a puny enemy? The CCP accuses him of "subversion," but he broke no laws, does not head a counter-revolutionary army and was not on the verge of toppling the party.

Hu's political actions are much more modest than that. In 2000, he abandoned his studies at Beijing University when he learned that thousands of Henan peasants were dying from AIDS after having sold their blood to local traffickers. Since the beginning of this epidemic, his main activity has been the distribution of medicine and moral comfort in the doomed villages of Henan.

Hu's charitable work is not facilitated by the local authorities, who bear some responsibility in this epidemic; moreover, with non-governmental organizations being forbidden in China, Hu can act only by himself. Indeed, if he were to build any kind of organization to support his charity, he would be violating the law.

But the eye-opening tragedy of the Henan victims caused Hu to understand that it arose from the absence of human rights in China. So he started a Web site that acts as a chat room for Chinese academics sharing his concern. This Web site, now closed by the government, has also reported on the fate of Chen.

Chen, a blind peasant and self-taught lawyer, had protested in 2005 against the kidnapping of some 3,000 women in his hometown of Linyi. The women were sterilized or forced into having abortions in order to stabilize the population increase in the region. As this extreme violence violates Chinese law, Chen petitioned the central government -- the only legally recognized form of protest in China. When carrying his petition to Beijing, escorted by a tiny group of lawyers, Chen was accused of disrupting traffic on the city's clogged roads and condemned to four years in jail.

Why do such moderate actions, rooted in the Chinese moral tradition, provoke such dramatic repression? Hu and Chen clearly respect the law. They don't call for revolution. True enough, they talk to foreign journalists who report their actions; however, such contact is not illegal.

But the CCP is haunted by the Soviet precedent. No Chinese Andrei Sakharov or Alexander Solzhenitsyn will be allowed to tarnish the "success" of the party. The incarceration of Hu and Chen is a clear signal that no democratization process will start in China outside of the party's control.

When the Chinese leaders mention democracy in official declarations, they mean "organized" democracy, from the top down. Any attempt at democratization by civil society will thus be crushed in its infancy.

China is clearly not on the path toward a Western-style democracy and economic growth will not be a prelude to a free society so long as the party can prevent it. The regime's true ambition is to invent an alternative to Western democracy: an enlightened despotism under the tutelage of a meritocratic CCP. The Beijing Games are being designed to promote this alternative model.

How legitimate is this model? The party's 60 million members, nearly all males and city dwellers, would probably approve, as might the 200 million Chinese who share the profits of rapid economic growth. But what do 1 billion people living in utter poverty (300 million on less than US$1 a day) and deprived of any rights think of this enlightened despotism? No one knows, because they cannot express their wishes.

Perhaps Hu and Chen represent this silent billion more than the party does. That would explain why the party has crushed them -- and why any decent participant in this summer's Olympics should demand their immediate release.

Guy Sorman is a French philosopher, economist and author.

Undemocratic KMT

By Charles Hong of Columbus, Ohio

If the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has a conscience, it should feel ashamed of benefiting a great deal from the recent legislative elections.

Many people did not vote for Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidates because of the poor performance of the DPP government and several corruption cases. However, the KMT is partly responsible for the DPP administration's poor performance because KMT legislators repeatedly boycotted proposed government projects and disapproved or cut budgets, including the national and defense budgets. The KMT would rather see the DPP government fail than allow it to operate smoothly.

The past eight years also saw persistent conflict between the central government and the KMT-controlled Taipei City Government, which appears bent on implementing a "one nation, two systems" in Taiwan. Determined to oppose the government, the KMT continues to worship dictatorship, wears its "China" hat and is committed to "ultimate unification."

Corruption by government officials and their family members should be condemned. But the fact is the KMT is not any cleaner than the DPP. In last Saturday's referendums, 91.5 percent of the valid votes cast were in favor of asking the KMT to return its stolen assets and 58.2 percent were in favor of punishing corrupt officials. Unfortunately, both issues were defeated partly because of the KMT's campaign to boycott the referendums, including the one it proposed. Strangely, the KMT was afraid of a high turnout of voters.

In spite of the fatal setback the DPP suffered, DPP members have displayed sportsmanship. In contrast, after the last two presidential elections in 2000 and 2004, the KMT and other pan-blue party members protested loudly and violently in the streets day and night for several months. Taiwan needs democracy with sportsmanship.

"If the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has a conscience, it should feel ashamed of benefiting a great deal from the recent legislative elections."

If they did, they would have long apologized for the atrocities they have committed, both past and present...

"In spite of the fatal setback the DPP suffered, DPP members have displayed sportsmanship. In contrast, after the last two presidential elections in 2000 and 2004, the KMT and other pan-blue party members protested loudly and violently in the streets day and night for several months. Taiwan needs democracy with sportsmanship."

Sportmanships is nice, but doesn't mean of thing if being a gracious loser means losing your country, or what was of it...

Taiwanese Be Proud

By Samuel Yang of Bloomfield Hills, Michigan

The resounding defeat of the indendependence-leaning ruling party in the recent legislative elections must have been profoundly depressing to those who hoped for self-determination for Taiwan.

The defeat may look like a forfeiture of self-determination. However, Taiwanese democracy has survived a very bitter contest between the pro-Taiwan and pro-China groups, without significant civic unrest. Moreover, it has also overcome the subversive threat of China's united front tactics.

As such, Taiwanese should hold their heads up high and treasure the preservation of this most remarkable democracy. The decision of the majority prevailed, and all issues can be resolved by peaceful means.

The extraordinary tolerance shown by the pro-Taiwan group to the anti-democratic provocations by the opposition should not be considered cowardice. Instead, it should be rewarded handsomely in future elections.

The legislative responsibilities of rooting out corruption in the government, reinvigorating the economy and safeguarding Taiwan's sovereignty are now entirely in the hands of the pro-China group. The pro-Taiwan group will be in the driver's seat to oversee the performance of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). A free press and free speech, which had been carefully nurtured by the ruling party during the last eight years, will also scrutinize the promises made by the KMT before the elections.

With a firmly established democracy, it will be impossible for the KMT to resurrect the past autocratic regime. In March, the pro-Taiwan group will have another chance to prove that its relentless pursuit of democracy is most beneficial to all Taiwanese.

DPP Loss Part of Democratic Process

By Cao Changqing 曹長青

THE RESULT OF the legislative elections was difficult for everyone in the pan-green camp. Questions abound on why it happened and what the green camp should do next. Pro-pan-blue media have given two explanations for the results: It was a vote of no confidence in President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), and it was the result of the deep-greens taking the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) hostage.

There are two reasons why the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is making much of these interpretations. First, the KMT wants to lead the public into thinking that Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), the party's presidential candidate, is most likely to be elected. And second, the KMT wants to lure the DPP into adopting a more moderate line, thus putting a stop to the normalization of the country and weakening the confidence of pan-green supporters.

A closer look at the election system and structure would reveal the reasons behind the DPP loss.

First, the change to a new single-member district, two-vote system. In 2005, former DPP chairman Lin I-hsiung (林義雄) went on a hunger strike to call for a reduction in the number of legislative seats. This came from an idealistic view of politics. However, the new system favored the KMT, with its stash of stolen assets and huge and well organized power base. As a result, when a blue and a green candidate competed for a seat in one district, the pan-blue candidate obviously had the advantage. The day the new single-member district system was decided on, the green camp's loss became unavoidable. The KMT won only 15 percent more votes than the DPP in the elections, but garnered 4.7 times the number of seats. This shows just how much the pan-blue camp benefited from the new voting system. For the pan-green camp, this was the bitter result of top party members insisting on political correctness at the expense of political reality.

A second cause of the DPP loss was the vote captains. In Yunlin County, a 27-year-old woman who had just finished her studies, never been elected to any local council and lacked political experience and qualifications became a legislator because her father had a large power base in the area. This happened while many honest, skilled, senior legislators lost, demonstrating the effectiveness of a vote captain culture at the grassroots level. The KMT has at least 250 times more assets than the DPP and can support its vote captain culture with injections of cash. This made the election battle very unbalanced, but it is the price the country had to pay for a peaceful transfer of power, and it must be endured.

The third reason behind the DPP loss was the economy. Since the green camp came to power, the Chinese Communist Party, together with the KMT, has lamented the state of affairs in Taiwan, exaggerating Taiwan's economic problems and saying the public couldn't make ends meet because the DPP government was ineffective. Even former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) went along with this and talked about how the public was suffering. And with the KMT-controlled media contributing to the distortion of facts and reinforcing this message of an economic malaise, many were swayed.

A fourth reason was overly high expectations. After the fall of communist regimes in Eastern Europe, most democratic parties that came to power faced the same problem after taking office for the first time: very high expectations from the public. As soon as a member of the government was found to be corrupt, the party's supporters became enraged. The old media added fuel to the fire and, as a result, the public became even less forgiving of the new government than the old one. Often, democratic governments that had come to power in these new East European democracies lost in the next elections. However, as the public gradually gained more faith in democracy, the democratic parties became more successful.

Under the KMT and China's watch, Taiwan's situation is more difficult than that of East European countries. The DPP may have suffered in the elections, but as long as Taiwanese don't give up their faith in democracy and remain steadfast in upholding Taiwanese identity, Taiwan can still succeed in its quest for normalization. The pan-green camp must now leave all its old complaints behind, refrain from fingerpointing, stop being discouraged or disappointed and put all its efforts into winning over the public and outrunning the KMT in the March presidential election.

Cao Changqing is a political commentator based in the US.

Voting Democracy Away

There is a saying that has long circulated in circles like Washington that "Chinese are too busy making money to worry about democracy."

Author James Mann, however, contends in his book The China Fantasy that this is a fallacy and just a convenient sound bite for foreign businesspeople and politicians who wish to ignore the authoritarian nature of China's current regime while taking advantage of its cheap labor.

The frequent demonstrations seen in Hong Kong opposing Beijing's heavy-handed rule and the lack of democratic progress since its handover to China lend credence to Mann's theory. Just last Sunday, about 20,000 Hong Kongers took to the streets in the latest protest calling for universal suffrage in the territory. The protesters were upset at Beijing's announcement last month that they might be able to elect their leader by 2017. Hong Kongers had been pushing for the right to elect their government by 2012.

It is a safe bet that given the chance, millions of people in China would also help prove Mann right.

Contrast this with events here last Saturday, when Taiwanese voted for a new legislature. The outcome saw the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) gain a two-thirds majority in the legislature, giving the party's presidential candidate, Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), a huge boost ahead of the March presidential poll.

The KMT backs increasing cross-strait economic ties, arguing that more business with China will help solve what they term "Taiwan's economic malaise."

But despite promises from Ma that he will not talk unification if elected president, the increased business and cultural contact that would occur under a Beijing-friendly KMT government and the sacrifices of sovereignty the KMT will have to make to achieve this will make future expressions of Taiwan's current independent status even more difficult and the drift toward some kind of unification agreement all the more unavoidable.

This could eventually pose a threat to the full democratic rights Taiwanese now enjoy.

Increasing cross-strait business ties and investment will only give China more control over Taiwan's prosperity and will likely result in more wealthy and influential Taiwanese tying their colors to Beijing's mast. People like former United Microelectronics Corp chairman Robert Tsao (曹興誠) bear testament to this.

When Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong, tried to institutionalize democratic ideals in the territory ahead of its return to China, some of his most vociferous opponents were the billionaire business barons who considered democracy an unnecessary and unwanted obstacle to their continued wealth accumulation.

Mann points out that a similar phenomenon could occur in China's ruling and newly wealthy middle class. This could prevent the move toward democracy in China that US officials seem convinced increased trade relations will eventually bring.

Taking this into account, Taiwanese could also one day find themselves in the same situation as Hong Kongers, where tycoons who hold influence in Taipei and have a vested interest in China continue to oppose democracy.

Of course, Taiwan's already established democratic system would be difficult for China to dismantle, but with Beijing's relentless arms build-up showing no sign of slowing and its burgeoning economic might bringing other powerful countries to heel, 20 years from now Taiwan may be in no position to resist.

How ironic it would be if Taiwan, the first and only true democracy in an ethnic Chinese country, were to buck the global trend and give its hard-won freedom away.

Taipei Times Editorial, January 18, 2008

"How ironic it would be if Taiwan, the first and only true democracy in an ethnic Chinese country, were to buck the global trend and give its hard-won freedom away."

ironic indeed...

Rejecting the Tools of Democracy

After undertaking months' campaign to collect 1 million signatures endorsing its proposed referendum, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) had a sudden change of heart two weeks prior to election day and asked voters to boycott tomorrow's referendums -- including its own.

Making the decision during the KMT Central Standing Committee, the party justified its position by arguing that the "referendums have been twisted and kidnapped by the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] to be used as a tool to provoke conflict."

KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) added that the party had not ruled out boycotting the two UN-membership referendums -- one by the DPP to join the UN using the name "Taiwan" and the other by the KMT to "return" to the UN using the nation's official title, "Republic of China" -- that are scheduled to be held on March 22 in tandem with the presidential election.

It is dumbfounding how easy it is for the KMT, in today's democratic Taiwan, to disregard the voices of millions in such a casual way: The opinions of a few Central Standing Committee members have effortlessly overruled the collective opinion of more than 1 million petitioners.

Taiwan has come a long way from the days of authoritarian rule. No direct presidential election was allowed and freedom of speech and the press was a pipe dream. Today, people can freely exercise their rights without fear that they could be dragged out of their beds in the middle of the night and disappear.

Some trumpet participation in referendums as the "people's right." But a closer look shows it would be more precise to say that it is the "people's privilege," because not every country practices direct democracy. With this is mind, anyone who is a proud Taiwanese should not easily abandon that special privilege by forsaking their referendum ballots.

It is not that surprising to hear calls from the KMT to boycott the referendums. After all, it was the pan-blue camp's actions that resulted in the "bird cage" version of the Referendum Law (公民投票法), which resorts to technicalities to restrict the use of referendums, depriving Taiwanese of greater democratic power.

But anyone who respects the country's democratic pioneers and feels a sense of responsibility in defending the country's hard-won democracy should not allow themselves to be intoxicated by the KMT's anti-democratic rhetoric.

Two referendums will be held tomorrow -- one initiated by the DPP on recovering assets stolen by the KMT, and the other proposed by the KMT to empower the legislature to investigate misconduct of senior government officials and their families.

Whether individuals agree or disagree with the questions addressed in the two referendums, they should cast their referendum ballots tomorrow and make their voices heard.

Taking part in a referendum is a privilege but also an obligation from which each citizen of a democracy should draw pride.

The boycott proposal is not only an insult to voters, but also harmful to the nation's effort to consolidate democracy.

Taipei Times Editorial, January 11, 2008.

There is Beauty in all that Chaos

It would be difficult these days to ignore all the grumbling about how "messy" the road to next year's legislative and presidential elections has become. And with election time just around the corner, those voices are bound to become even louder.

It has not, indeed, been a pretty picture. The electoral painting so far consists of precious few strokes of originality, several blotches of character assassination and equal daubs of sheer stupidity, gallons of promises, layer upon layer of empty rhetoric and swaths of unused canvas. Moreover, the two principal artists who have worked on the project have not been given the same amount of paint, which has resulted in an imbalanced artwork, with far more blue than green.

We've also seen the machinations to rig (or refashion, depending on one's view) the Central Election Commission in the hopes of avoiding a deplorable historical truth, accusations of platforms stolen, repetition ad nauseam of a supposedly sagging economy, the "one vote" versus "two vote" war of attrition and the UN referendum, joined at the hip by its Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-hatched evil twin.

Throughout all this we have had the probes into alleged corruption and the Democratic Progressive Party's asinine proposal yesterday that the immediate relatives of those responsible for the 228 Incident be legally accountable to the victims' families -- all cynical efforts that only the long dead would fail to associate with the elections. Ugly indeed.

But before you start planning something other than a visit to the polling booth on election day, think of this: Are elections elsewhere -- in countries where elections are actually possible -- any better? A brief survey should enlighten us.

In the democracy of democracies, US President George W. Bush, who lost the 2000 election by any reasonable measure, has been in the White House for seven long years. Across the Florida Strait, Cuban President Fidel Castro, who likes to call Cuban elections "the most democratic in the world," is not even directly elected by citizens.

Populists, meanwhile, like to boast of popularity levels that are so laughable as to be equaled only by former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's -- and that was at gunpoint. Hugo Chavez has sought (but seems to have failed and will likely blame the US) to become president for life, while Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose term is up, is trying to devise a way to stay in power. In Pakistan, meanwhile, Pervez Musharraf has been dismembering democracy one judge at a time in preparation for elections, the outcome of which is known by all.

Closer to home, the Philippine president cannot even leave the country without fearing she might not be president when she returns. Thailand, for its part, has had so many coups we've lost count, while in Hong Kong, despite pro-democracy Anson Chan's (陳方安生) welcome win yesterday, one would nevertheless be advised to refrain from putting too much money on universal suffrage coming anytime soon.

The truth is that democracy is a cacophony and the inherent freedoms it guarantees allow individuals to exploit and contort and distort. Imperfect though it is, Taiwan's democracy works, and when you weigh it against the many other democracies and quasi-democracies of this world, it doesn't fare too badly. Transfer of power has occurred peacefully, the military is safely under civilian control and will not take to the streets whenever the president leaves the country.

And anyone who would propose becoming president for life would be laughed out of town so fast that he or she would have no choice but to flee to China or any other country whose political system makes a travesty of democracy.

Taipei Times Editorial, December 4, 2007.