By Matthew Lien
The recent election of South Korean President Lee Myung-bak was attributed in part to his restoration of a river running through Seoul. When Lee was elected mayor of Seoul in 2001, one of his key campaign promises was to remove the freeway covering the Cheonggyecheon River and to restore the waterway as a symbol of the city's beauty.
This caused me to reflect on Taiwan's presidential election and the first time I met Kaohsiung environmental activists and academics involved in the clean-up of the Kaoping River.
In 1999, I was appointed "Ambassador to the Aboriginal Cultures of the Kaoping River" by the Kaohsiung County Government and was given a tour of the most beautiful and most polluted sections of the river. I was also shown what efforts were being made to improve it and Kaohsiung City's Love River.
Years later, the results are impressive and the credit must go partly to the commitment of Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷), who was at the time mayor of Kaohsiung.
Both of these rivers are widely known success stories, illustrating the importance of environmentalism and community development.
By contrast, I was invited several years ago by the Taipei City Government when Chinese Nationalist Party presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was mayor to tour the Tamsui River. The Department of Cultural Affairs director at the time, Lung Ying-tai (龍應台), and I took a one-hour tour of the river. Infamous for its severe pollution, a stench rose from the water as we climbed into small boats.
Accompanied by reporters, we saw dead pigs float by in the water, which can fairly be described as toxic. This was clearly an atrocity against the environment and allowing it to continue unchecked was a grievous failure of government at all levels.
Lung asked for my recommendations, which I enthusiastically provided based on my river conservation work in Canada with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS), Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Yukon Conservation Society and Friends of Yukon Rivers.
I described in detail an annual river festival that should be held on the banks of the Tamsui River, featuring original music and works by local artists portraying their impressions of the river. A CD and a coffee-table book could be published annually to help fund the festival and educate more people about the issue.
I also suggested that academics and water specialists be involved in the festival, updating the public on the pollution and its causes and documenting any changes in water quality.
They would also suggest which government departments should take responsibility for enforcing laws that penalize offenders and correct the problem. They could issue "report cards" to those departments.
I felt this would bring media attention, increase government accountability and inspire government action.
Lung supported my proposals and we presented the plan to the media.
Years later, the Tamsui River remains one of the most polluted in the country. All the talk of improvements seem to have been nothing more than a media exercise. It looked great on TV, but it resulted in little or nothing being done by Ma's administration.
As Taiwan goes to the polls, I can't help but recall my personal experiences with the two candidates and the adage: "By their fruits will you know them."
As one who believes that government officials bear the responsibility for the entire community and environment in their jurisdiction, I trust in the rivers to endorse the candidate who is best to navigate the currents of change facing Taiwan.
Matthew Lien is an environmentalist and musician from Canada.
2008年3月20日 星期四
US Deploys Two Aircraft Carriers Close to Taiwan
By Charles Snyder, additional reporting by Jenny W. Hsu
'RESPONSIBLY POSITIONED': Washington was mum on whether the violent Chinese crackdown in Tibet would have an impact on the presidential election
Two US aircraft carriers, the USS Kitty Hawk and the USS Nimitz, have been sent to the Taiwan region for training exercises during tomorrow's election, a US defense official said on Wednesday.
The two carriers were "responsibly positioned" in the Pacific Ocean somewhere east of Taiwan and would remain in place through Saturday's presidential election and referendum on UN membership, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
He declined to elaborate on the positions of the two vessels.
"We feel we are responsibly positioned at this time," the defense official said, adding that the two carriers were not close enough to Taiwan to provoke China, but would be able to "respond if there's a provocative situation."
Navy officials said the Kitty Hawk left its base in Japan en route to Hawaii on Tuesday and would continue on to the continental US later for decommissioning.
In Taipei, the Ministry of National Defense did not comment on the deployment.
American Institute in Taiwan Director Stephen Young said that the vessels were merely making a routine patrol in the Strait and that it had nothing to do with tomorrow's election.
Meanwhile, high-level US State Department officials on Wednesday refused to speculate on how the uprising in Tibet and the violent response by Beijing authorities might affect tomorrow's election in Taiwan, but the officials once again criticized the planned referendum on UN membership.
The officials were responding to a flurry of interest in the Taiwanese elections by journalists in Washington in view of reports from Taiwan about the local impact of the Tibetan uprising and repeated comments by department officials on the referendum.
Meanwhile, four Taiwan supporters in the House of Representatives wrote a letter to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday, urging her to support the referendum.
Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Christopher Hill sidestepped a question about whether events in Tibet could have "unexpected implications" for the Taiwanese election and "negative implications" for cross-strait relations.
"I'm not going to handicap ... make judgements ... about how the people in Taiwan are going to make their vote. They have information. They'll look at information and I'm not going to start predicting what things that happen in the world can affect their vote," he said.
"Obviously ... we look forward to a free and fair election in Taiwan. We have every reason to expect it to be. But I am not really in a position to tell you what is affecting the vote and what is not affecting the vote," Hill said.
He also said he had nothing to add to the criticism that Rice has leveled at the referendum recently.
"How [the elections] are conducted is a matter for the people of Taiwan to accomplish. I'm not going to give them advice on what to do in their elections," he said.
US State Department spokesman Tom Casey, however, took the opportunity to level yet one more barb at the referendum.
"As we've indicated," he told a reporter at the department's regular daily briefing, "the United States is opposed to the specific referendum [on UN entry under the name `Taiwan']. We believe it is unnecessary and unhelpful and will not have an effect on Taiwan's ability to join the UN or other organizations requiring statehood."
Casey also said the US "does look forward to a free and fair election in Taiwan. And we will work within the parameters of our existing relationship with whoever is elected by the Taiwan [sic] people."
The congressional letter to Rice was signed by representatives Robert Andrews, a Democrat, and Scott Garrett of New Jersey, John Linder of Georgia and Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan, who are Republicans. Andrews and Garrett have been among Taiwan's biggest champions on Capitol Hill.
"We strongly urge the United States to support the referendum," the lawmakers said.
"The Taiwanese people have the right -- as all people do -- to self-determination," the letter said. "However, the ability to exercise that right is severely compromised when a nation's largest ally turns its back."
"For too long Taiwan has stood its ground as a bulwark of democracy against the encroaching aspirations of an authoritarian communist regime. We should not condemn or oppose the dreams of those who want only to remain free and take their place in the international community," the letter said.
'RESPONSIBLY POSITIONED': Washington was mum on whether the violent Chinese crackdown in Tibet would have an impact on the presidential election
Two US aircraft carriers, the USS Kitty Hawk and the USS Nimitz, have been sent to the Taiwan region for training exercises during tomorrow's election, a US defense official said on Wednesday.
The two carriers were "responsibly positioned" in the Pacific Ocean somewhere east of Taiwan and would remain in place through Saturday's presidential election and referendum on UN membership, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
He declined to elaborate on the positions of the two vessels.
"We feel we are responsibly positioned at this time," the defense official said, adding that the two carriers were not close enough to Taiwan to provoke China, but would be able to "respond if there's a provocative situation."
Navy officials said the Kitty Hawk left its base in Japan en route to Hawaii on Tuesday and would continue on to the continental US later for decommissioning.
In Taipei, the Ministry of National Defense did not comment on the deployment.
American Institute in Taiwan Director Stephen Young said that the vessels were merely making a routine patrol in the Strait and that it had nothing to do with tomorrow's election.
Meanwhile, high-level US State Department officials on Wednesday refused to speculate on how the uprising in Tibet and the violent response by Beijing authorities might affect tomorrow's election in Taiwan, but the officials once again criticized the planned referendum on UN membership.
The officials were responding to a flurry of interest in the Taiwanese elections by journalists in Washington in view of reports from Taiwan about the local impact of the Tibetan uprising and repeated comments by department officials on the referendum.
Meanwhile, four Taiwan supporters in the House of Representatives wrote a letter to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday, urging her to support the referendum.
Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Christopher Hill sidestepped a question about whether events in Tibet could have "unexpected implications" for the Taiwanese election and "negative implications" for cross-strait relations.
"I'm not going to handicap ... make judgements ... about how the people in Taiwan are going to make their vote. They have information. They'll look at information and I'm not going to start predicting what things that happen in the world can affect their vote," he said.
"Obviously ... we look forward to a free and fair election in Taiwan. We have every reason to expect it to be. But I am not really in a position to tell you what is affecting the vote and what is not affecting the vote," Hill said.
He also said he had nothing to add to the criticism that Rice has leveled at the referendum recently.
"How [the elections] are conducted is a matter for the people of Taiwan to accomplish. I'm not going to give them advice on what to do in their elections," he said.
US State Department spokesman Tom Casey, however, took the opportunity to level yet one more barb at the referendum.
"As we've indicated," he told a reporter at the department's regular daily briefing, "the United States is opposed to the specific referendum [on UN entry under the name `Taiwan']. We believe it is unnecessary and unhelpful and will not have an effect on Taiwan's ability to join the UN or other organizations requiring statehood."
Casey also said the US "does look forward to a free and fair election in Taiwan. And we will work within the parameters of our existing relationship with whoever is elected by the Taiwan [sic] people."
The congressional letter to Rice was signed by representatives Robert Andrews, a Democrat, and Scott Garrett of New Jersey, John Linder of Georgia and Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan, who are Republicans. Andrews and Garrett have been among Taiwan's biggest champions on Capitol Hill.
"We strongly urge the United States to support the referendum," the lawmakers said.
"The Taiwanese people have the right -- as all people do -- to self-determination," the letter said. "However, the ability to exercise that right is severely compromised when a nation's largest ally turns its back."
"For too long Taiwan has stood its ground as a bulwark of democracy against the encroaching aspirations of an authoritarian communist regime. We should not condemn or oppose the dreams of those who want only to remain free and take their place in the international community," the letter said.
Beijing's Not Bringing Cookies
Lee Long-Hwa of New York
As Taiwan goes to the presidential polls, it is imperative the nation notes and understands the situation in Tibet. For those Taiwanese who dream of becoming an integral part of China, it is important to understand that the treatment of Tibet and Tibetans is only a small sample of what lies in store for Taiwan should it become part of China.
For those Taiwanese who believe that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) represents a new day for big money in Taiwan, where Taiwan can co-exist with China in peace and prosperity, it is important to understand that there is no "co-existence" in Beijing's vocabulary.
The only definition of "co-existence" for Beijing is "undying loyalty to the Communist Party, upon pain of death."
Ma talks about 30 years of peace with Beijing. But Beijing has murdered Tibet's culture and autonomy over a period of 50 years.
Are you skeptical? Fifty years of Beijing's relationship with the Dalai Lama should have proved this point to the world already.
If a nation cannot co-exist with the Dalai Lama, a leader who personifies peace, just who in the world can they co-exist with?
Nor will Beijing march into Taipei with guns drawn. Its annexation of Taiwan is being planned in far more subtle ways, with or without the KMT's full complicity.
Wearing grins on their faces and talking about social harmony, cross-strait peace and a "one-China market," politicians on both sides are misrepresenting the underlying predatory nature of Beijing to the Taiwanese public.
The plans call for peace, but as soon as the guard is down, as soon as someone decides there is no immediate threat, the dam will burst and the flood of China's overwhelming tide will overwhelm Taiwan.
It will first come from the sheer numbers of Chinese visitors and then immigrants, money, millions of workers, hollowing out invaluable industries, and -- when Taiwan is utterly cowed and dependent on Beijing's succor -- blackmail.
Once overwhelmed, all hope is lost.
Beijing will not treat Taiwan like Hong Kong (which is bad enough), but rather like Tibet, where right now, today, at this very moment, soldiers are conducting house-to-house searches for monks supporting the Dalai Lama, looking for pictures of him or any other evidence of loyalty.
How long before Chinese soldiers are running from house to house in Taipei searching for "splittists"? Where will Ma be then? Standing in front, protecting those houses? Or running along beside the soldiers, aiding and abetting?
You decide.
With President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) at least I know they would die fighting.
They've already sacrificed themselves for Taiwan's democracy before.
I haven't heard anything from Ma that would convince me he wouldn't be on the first plane to Hong Kong (or New York or Beijing)
For those going to the polls, Tibet should serve as a loud and blaring wake up call. For those who think things have changed and that Beijing is a kinder and gentler adversary, wake up.
The predatory neighbor is not coming to visit Taiwan bearing cookies. It is coming bearing dictatorship and tyranny. Vote for anything less than complete vigilance against it, and you are inviting the beast to a dinner where you are the main dish.
And if you doubt that, if you are skeptical that Beijing could do that, just read about Tibet right now.
It's real. It's happening. The actions of Beijing in Tibet are no different than its attitude toward Taiwan.
And it's coming, unless you vote to keep it out.
You decide.
As Taiwan goes to the presidential polls, it is imperative the nation notes and understands the situation in Tibet. For those Taiwanese who dream of becoming an integral part of China, it is important to understand that the treatment of Tibet and Tibetans is only a small sample of what lies in store for Taiwan should it become part of China.
For those Taiwanese who believe that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) represents a new day for big money in Taiwan, where Taiwan can co-exist with China in peace and prosperity, it is important to understand that there is no "co-existence" in Beijing's vocabulary.
The only definition of "co-existence" for Beijing is "undying loyalty to the Communist Party, upon pain of death."
Ma talks about 30 years of peace with Beijing. But Beijing has murdered Tibet's culture and autonomy over a period of 50 years.
Are you skeptical? Fifty years of Beijing's relationship with the Dalai Lama should have proved this point to the world already.
If a nation cannot co-exist with the Dalai Lama, a leader who personifies peace, just who in the world can they co-exist with?
Nor will Beijing march into Taipei with guns drawn. Its annexation of Taiwan is being planned in far more subtle ways, with or without the KMT's full complicity.
Wearing grins on their faces and talking about social harmony, cross-strait peace and a "one-China market," politicians on both sides are misrepresenting the underlying predatory nature of Beijing to the Taiwanese public.
The plans call for peace, but as soon as the guard is down, as soon as someone decides there is no immediate threat, the dam will burst and the flood of China's overwhelming tide will overwhelm Taiwan.
It will first come from the sheer numbers of Chinese visitors and then immigrants, money, millions of workers, hollowing out invaluable industries, and -- when Taiwan is utterly cowed and dependent on Beijing's succor -- blackmail.
Once overwhelmed, all hope is lost.
Beijing will not treat Taiwan like Hong Kong (which is bad enough), but rather like Tibet, where right now, today, at this very moment, soldiers are conducting house-to-house searches for monks supporting the Dalai Lama, looking for pictures of him or any other evidence of loyalty.
How long before Chinese soldiers are running from house to house in Taipei searching for "splittists"? Where will Ma be then? Standing in front, protecting those houses? Or running along beside the soldiers, aiding and abetting?
You decide.
With President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) at least I know they would die fighting.
They've already sacrificed themselves for Taiwan's democracy before.
I haven't heard anything from Ma that would convince me he wouldn't be on the first plane to Hong Kong (or New York or Beijing)
For those going to the polls, Tibet should serve as a loud and blaring wake up call. For those who think things have changed and that Beijing is a kinder and gentler adversary, wake up.
The predatory neighbor is not coming to visit Taiwan bearing cookies. It is coming bearing dictatorship and tyranny. Vote for anything less than complete vigilance against it, and you are inviting the beast to a dinner where you are the main dish.
And if you doubt that, if you are skeptical that Beijing could do that, just read about Tibet right now.
It's real. It's happening. The actions of Beijing in Tibet are no different than its attitude toward Taiwan.
And it's coming, unless you vote to keep it out.
You decide.
2008年3月18日 星期二
Time to End the Media's Distortion of the Truth
By Lillian Wang 王泰俐, translated by Eddy Chang
The economy has been the main focus of the presidential campaign. In addition to the unfavorable domestic and global economic situation, this is the result of the "relative deprivation" created by some media outlets in recent years.
They have used the public's enthusiasm for comparison to generate a sense of envy if others have something that they do not; or a sense of frustration if people believe they deserve something that they do not have.
The manipulation of "relative deprivation" has successfully dominated the campaign, crowding out other issues. The influence of the media on this issue should not be underestimated.
By controlling the social atmosphere, the media is able to shape public opinion in such a way that it can achieve predictable results.
Even voters who aren't particularly interested in the economy -- preferring to focus on Taiwan's democratic development, sovereignty and future direction -- also suffer deeply from "relative deprivation." The issues they value have been overlooked by much of the media, as if they don't exist. This is also why the Intellectuals' Alliance has attempted to provide diverse options for thought to voters before the election.
Much of the public has a sense of "relative deprivation" because of the media's unbalanced reporting, which has been lacking in diversity since the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came to power in 2000.
Take the major political events and social conflicts for example. Certain media channels report only parts of such stories to create a so-called "social reality" that meets their own objectives.
The public has been deprived of its right to know the truth. The biased coverage of the intrusion into DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh's (謝長廷) campaign headquarters by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers last Wednesday was an excellent example of this kind of manipulation.
Judging from the media's preset issues, the interpretation of both political and economic events, the partial reporting of certain news and political commentary shows, there appears to be a large gap between the supporters of the two camps in terms of access to media information, an important social resource.
Taiwan will elect a new president on Saturday. Some media outlets are portraying the political situation as the coming of a "new dawn."
However, given the prevailing media bias, we can hardly be so optimistic. If KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is elected, the media's practice of "what we say counts" will only worsen. Media resource distribution may even become more uneven.
But if Hsieh is elected, couldn't such uneven distribution be improved in the face of a ruling minority and an opposition majority?
Now is the time to keep such "relative deprivation" by the media from being employed again in the next election, causing even more social conflict.
Lillian Wang is an associate professor of journalism at National Chengchi University.
The economy has been the main focus of the presidential campaign. In addition to the unfavorable domestic and global economic situation, this is the result of the "relative deprivation" created by some media outlets in recent years.
They have used the public's enthusiasm for comparison to generate a sense of envy if others have something that they do not; or a sense of frustration if people believe they deserve something that they do not have.
The manipulation of "relative deprivation" has successfully dominated the campaign, crowding out other issues. The influence of the media on this issue should not be underestimated.
By controlling the social atmosphere, the media is able to shape public opinion in such a way that it can achieve predictable results.
Even voters who aren't particularly interested in the economy -- preferring to focus on Taiwan's democratic development, sovereignty and future direction -- also suffer deeply from "relative deprivation." The issues they value have been overlooked by much of the media, as if they don't exist. This is also why the Intellectuals' Alliance has attempted to provide diverse options for thought to voters before the election.
Much of the public has a sense of "relative deprivation" because of the media's unbalanced reporting, which has been lacking in diversity since the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came to power in 2000.
Take the major political events and social conflicts for example. Certain media channels report only parts of such stories to create a so-called "social reality" that meets their own objectives.
The public has been deprived of its right to know the truth. The biased coverage of the intrusion into DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh's (謝長廷) campaign headquarters by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers last Wednesday was an excellent example of this kind of manipulation.
Judging from the media's preset issues, the interpretation of both political and economic events, the partial reporting of certain news and political commentary shows, there appears to be a large gap between the supporters of the two camps in terms of access to media information, an important social resource.
Taiwan will elect a new president on Saturday. Some media outlets are portraying the political situation as the coming of a "new dawn."
However, given the prevailing media bias, we can hardly be so optimistic. If KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is elected, the media's practice of "what we say counts" will only worsen. Media resource distribution may even become more uneven.
But if Hsieh is elected, couldn't such uneven distribution be improved in the face of a ruling minority and an opposition majority?
Now is the time to keep such "relative deprivation" by the media from being employed again in the next election, causing even more social conflict.
Lillian Wang is an associate professor of journalism at National Chengchi University.
2008年3月12日 星期三
Making "Referendum" A Dirty Word
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Wu Po-hsiung's (吳伯雄) announcement yesterday that his party would boycott the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) referendum on UN entry using the name "Taiwan" and back the KMT's own on "returning to the UN" would appear to be the final nail in the coffin of the DPP's plebiscite.
Taking into account that previous KMT boycotts have ensured the failure of all four referendums staged since the Referendum Law was promulgated in November 2003, it signals that the DPP version now has very little chance of passing.
Passage of the KMT's referendum, however, also remains uncertain. Despite Wu's support of the party's plebiscite, several party legislators have already gone public with their intention to boycott both referendums.
The KMT is obviously split along its China-Taiwan divide on the issue and the party's spat can only add to the public's sense of confusion, which has resulted in the term "referendum" almost becoming a dirty word among Taiwanese.
The KMT must take the lion's share of the blame for this phenomenon because from day one they have treated the issue of referendums -- with the initiation of "smokescreen" rival plebiscites and irrational arguments about extra ballots "confusing" voters -- with disdain.
The KMT had no qualms about dumping the sham "corruption" referendum it proposed during January's legislative elections, but there was no practical way that it could have done the same this time around, as a boycott of its UN referendum would have put presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his running mate Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) in an extremely difficult position.
Ma's "flexible diplomacy" platform is more or less identical to the KMT's referendum question and he had publicly backed the plebiscite on more than one occasion, while Siew was the referendum's initiator.
But the KMT does not deserve all the blame, as the DPP, having waited too long for referendums to become a reality, is equally guilty of damaging what it terms "the sanctity" of the plebiscite.
As polls have repeatedly shown throughout the years, the majority of people in Taiwan are happy with the current state of affairs in cross-strait relations and they do not want to vote on issues that are likely to anger China.
The DPP, however, with its provocative choices for referendum topics, ignored this fact, as well as the concerns of the nation's main security guarantor -- the US -- in the hope of deepening Taiwan consciousness while rallying partisan support on election day.
The DPP would have done better to hold polls on less controversial issues to help the concept of the plebiscite become ingrained in the minds of the electorate, as this would eventually lead to a situation where no political party -- no matter how big its legislative majority -- would be able to make decisions concerning issues of national importance without first putting it to the people.
As it stands now, a huge chunk of the population have been turned off by the idea of referendums, despite the fact that the issue at stake on this occasion is of extreme importance to the nation's future.
Let's hope that a week from Saturday these people can overcome their apathy and come out in support of the referendums, as at least this would send a message, however muddled, to the world that despite all Taiwan's problems, its people are at least united on one issue.
Taipei Times Editorial, March 13, 2008.
Taking into account that previous KMT boycotts have ensured the failure of all four referendums staged since the Referendum Law was promulgated in November 2003, it signals that the DPP version now has very little chance of passing.
Passage of the KMT's referendum, however, also remains uncertain. Despite Wu's support of the party's plebiscite, several party legislators have already gone public with their intention to boycott both referendums.
The KMT is obviously split along its China-Taiwan divide on the issue and the party's spat can only add to the public's sense of confusion, which has resulted in the term "referendum" almost becoming a dirty word among Taiwanese.
The KMT must take the lion's share of the blame for this phenomenon because from day one they have treated the issue of referendums -- with the initiation of "smokescreen" rival plebiscites and irrational arguments about extra ballots "confusing" voters -- with disdain.
The KMT had no qualms about dumping the sham "corruption" referendum it proposed during January's legislative elections, but there was no practical way that it could have done the same this time around, as a boycott of its UN referendum would have put presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his running mate Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) in an extremely difficult position.
Ma's "flexible diplomacy" platform is more or less identical to the KMT's referendum question and he had publicly backed the plebiscite on more than one occasion, while Siew was the referendum's initiator.
But the KMT does not deserve all the blame, as the DPP, having waited too long for referendums to become a reality, is equally guilty of damaging what it terms "the sanctity" of the plebiscite.
As polls have repeatedly shown throughout the years, the majority of people in Taiwan are happy with the current state of affairs in cross-strait relations and they do not want to vote on issues that are likely to anger China.
The DPP, however, with its provocative choices for referendum topics, ignored this fact, as well as the concerns of the nation's main security guarantor -- the US -- in the hope of deepening Taiwan consciousness while rallying partisan support on election day.
The DPP would have done better to hold polls on less controversial issues to help the concept of the plebiscite become ingrained in the minds of the electorate, as this would eventually lead to a situation where no political party -- no matter how big its legislative majority -- would be able to make decisions concerning issues of national importance without first putting it to the people.
As it stands now, a huge chunk of the population have been turned off by the idea of referendums, despite the fact that the issue at stake on this occasion is of extreme importance to the nation's future.
Let's hope that a week from Saturday these people can overcome their apathy and come out in support of the referendums, as at least this would send a message, however muddled, to the world that despite all Taiwan's problems, its people are at least united on one issue.
Taipei Times Editorial, March 13, 2008.
2008年3月10日 星期一
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.
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.
2008年3月9日 星期日
No Time to Dally Over Options For
By Margot Chen 陳麗菊, translated by Angela Hong
The referendums on applying for UN membership face a difficult fate. If neither referendum passes, they will naturally become a tool for Beijing in its mission to undermine Taiwan's independence. Knowing this, it's not surprising that the fate of these two referendums are on the minds of many people.
There are several courses of action that should be considered.
First, the referendums could be moved from the election date and the voter threshold for valid results lowered. Separating the plebiscites from the election would only be significant if the threshold were simultaneously changed. Otherwise the referendums would still fail to pass, rendering the effort to move them from March 22 pointless.
If the referendums were to be moved and the threshold lowered, what would be an appropriate date for them? The Referendum Act (公民投票法) stipulates that the Central Election Commission should hold referendums within one to six months after a referendum proposal has passed the application procedure.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) referendums on applying for UN membership were both formally announced on Feb. 1, which means the referendums must be held before the end of July at the latest. Since the Beijing Olympics are in August, holding the polls sooner rather than later might help avoid fueling tension with China.
Another scenario would be for the referendums and the election to be held in tandem, but with a lower voter threshold. That would increase the chances of the plebiscites passing.
However, the pan-blue camp would oppose such an idea, since it proposed its mirror referendum with the goal of preventing the DPP poll from passing. The KMT rationale was essentially that the pan-green camp would use its referendum to garner votes in the presidential election. To combat this, it proposed its own version.
But now it seems clear that the DPP has not made any electoral strides by touting its plebiscite. Nevertheless, the pan-blue camp will still do what it can to stop the DPP poll from passing to ensure that a poll using the name "Taiwan" doesn't succeed.
The two plebiscites are not just about representation at the UN. The choice of the word "joining" in the DPP version and "rejoining" in the KMT version represents different positions on the core issue of national identity and radically different political ideologies.
As a final scenario, the nation could consider going through with the referendums as planned. No date changes and no changes to the voter threshold. Instead, the legislature could pass a resolution as a sort of "airbag" to minimize the damage caused by the failure of the two referendums.
If the referendums take place on March 22 and the threshold has not been lowered, it seems both will fail, much to the delight of Beijing and to the relief of Washington and Tokyo, as it would rid them of concern over one source of tension between China and Taiwan.
If this happens, a legislative solution could at least offer a patch-up, but the content of the resolution would be extremely important.
Unfortunately, the KMT has no sincere desire to negotiate with the DPP. Once again their behavior is indicative of their approach to politics: pursue party interests over national interests.
The drama surrounding the referendums and election has turned into a tragedy in which a matter of utmost importance has become nothing more than a political tool. That reality is a far cry from the point of the referendum mechanism, which is to give the public a voice.
Margot Chen is a research fellow at Taiwan Advocates, a think tank initiated by former president Lee Teng-hui.
The referendums on applying for UN membership face a difficult fate. If neither referendum passes, they will naturally become a tool for Beijing in its mission to undermine Taiwan's independence. Knowing this, it's not surprising that the fate of these two referendums are on the minds of many people.
There are several courses of action that should be considered.
First, the referendums could be moved from the election date and the voter threshold for valid results lowered. Separating the plebiscites from the election would only be significant if the threshold were simultaneously changed. Otherwise the referendums would still fail to pass, rendering the effort to move them from March 22 pointless.
If the referendums were to be moved and the threshold lowered, what would be an appropriate date for them? The Referendum Act (公民投票法) stipulates that the Central Election Commission should hold referendums within one to six months after a referendum proposal has passed the application procedure.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) referendums on applying for UN membership were both formally announced on Feb. 1, which means the referendums must be held before the end of July at the latest. Since the Beijing Olympics are in August, holding the polls sooner rather than later might help avoid fueling tension with China.
Another scenario would be for the referendums and the election to be held in tandem, but with a lower voter threshold. That would increase the chances of the plebiscites passing.
However, the pan-blue camp would oppose such an idea, since it proposed its mirror referendum with the goal of preventing the DPP poll from passing. The KMT rationale was essentially that the pan-green camp would use its referendum to garner votes in the presidential election. To combat this, it proposed its own version.
But now it seems clear that the DPP has not made any electoral strides by touting its plebiscite. Nevertheless, the pan-blue camp will still do what it can to stop the DPP poll from passing to ensure that a poll using the name "Taiwan" doesn't succeed.
The two plebiscites are not just about representation at the UN. The choice of the word "joining" in the DPP version and "rejoining" in the KMT version represents different positions on the core issue of national identity and radically different political ideologies.
As a final scenario, the nation could consider going through with the referendums as planned. No date changes and no changes to the voter threshold. Instead, the legislature could pass a resolution as a sort of "airbag" to minimize the damage caused by the failure of the two referendums.
If the referendums take place on March 22 and the threshold has not been lowered, it seems both will fail, much to the delight of Beijing and to the relief of Washington and Tokyo, as it would rid them of concern over one source of tension between China and Taiwan.
If this happens, a legislative solution could at least offer a patch-up, but the content of the resolution would be extremely important.
Unfortunately, the KMT has no sincere desire to negotiate with the DPP. Once again their behavior is indicative of their approach to politics: pursue party interests over national interests.
The drama surrounding the referendums and election has turned into a tragedy in which a matter of utmost importance has become nothing more than a political tool. That reality is a far cry from the point of the referendum mechanism, which is to give the public a voice.
Margot Chen is a research fellow at Taiwan Advocates, a think tank initiated by former president Lee Teng-hui.
2008年3月6日 星期四
Just Where Does Ma Draw the Line?
By Yao Jen-to 姚人多, translated by Ted Yang
Recently some pan-green academics and social activists organized a forum to challenge Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) with a wide array of questions on national identity, transitional justice, how Hsieh would distinguish himself from President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and the tax system. Hsieh was required to come clean on all these questions.
Would Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) participate in the same kind of forum? Would pan-blue intellectuals challenge Ma by following the same strict standards? Judging from the KMT's conservative and feudal history and its current campaign strategies, the possibility is probably very low. However, we feel this is a danger to Taiwan's democratic elections. For a long time, voters have voted for a candidate without knowing much about him or her. Should we allow this phenomenon to continue?
As a presidential candidate at this crucial juncture in Taiwan's history, Ma should accept a challenge in the same way as Hsieh did and clearly answer the following questions.
First, clear the air on the green card issue. A green card is a document that grants lawful permanent residency in the US, a prerequisite to immigrating to that country. That he applied for and received a green card indicates that Ma attempted to immigrate to the US in the 1970s when Taiwan was in a difficult situation.
This may not be a big issue for the general public, but as a possible national leader, we need to know what Ma was thinking at the time. Why did he consider leaving Taiwan? Is Taiwan no good?
Second, after losing power, all authoritarian parties have had to undergo a thorough reform process before regaining power. Ma should tell us how the KMT has changed during its eight years in opposition and what he did during his term as party chairman.
Why were the "black gold exclusion clauses" changed to allow him to run for the presidency? Why has he supported local factions with bad records during so many elections? If he was incapable of reforming the KMT, how could people trust him in managing the transformation of the entire nation?
Third, Ma lacks any outstanding achievement since he entered politics. This is ample evidence that he lacks administrative and executive capabilities. This lack of ability is worrying and causes people to lose faith in him.
The KMT is a 100-year-old party with extremely complex internal interests and conflicts, so how could Ma be sure that he would be running the country? Does he know what has happened to the party's ill-gotten assets or the ins and outs of the party's sale of its media companies -- the China Television Co, the Broadcasting Corp of China and the Central Motion Picture Corp? Can he be sure that he is not just a puppet of some more powerful force?
Fourth, over the past eight years the KMT has accused the DPP of cooperating with business conglomerates, but the KMT's relations with these conglomerates doesn't seem more virtuous.
For example, when Taipei Bank and Fubon Financial Holding Co merged when Ma was Taipei mayor, he illegally dismissed the Taipei Bank labor union chairman who was opposed to the deal. This clearly tells us that Ma will choose powerful business conglomerates over disadvantaged workers.
Worse yet, the draft amendment to the Labor Union Law (工會法) was sent to the legislature for a review during the last legislative session, it was blocked by the KMT. Could Ma explain why? When conflicts of interest arise between workers and business conglomerates, which side would Ma take?
Fifth, Ma has said he is Taiwanese to the death. Despite this, he has repeatedly promoted unification. Isn't there a contradiction in there somewhere? Is the word "Taiwanese" a regional or a national identification to him?
Could it be that his current claim to be a Taiwanese is aimed at eventually achieving his goal of becoming Chinese?
Some may argue that the forum to challenge Hsieh was simply an election ploy, but I am not going to dignify that with a refutation. I only hope Ma could also employ such "election ploys" and resolve these question marks hanging over him.
Yao Jen-to is an assistant professor in the Graduate Institute of Sociology at National Tsing Hua University.
Recently some pan-green academics and social activists organized a forum to challenge Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) with a wide array of questions on national identity, transitional justice, how Hsieh would distinguish himself from President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and the tax system. Hsieh was required to come clean on all these questions.
Would Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) participate in the same kind of forum? Would pan-blue intellectuals challenge Ma by following the same strict standards? Judging from the KMT's conservative and feudal history and its current campaign strategies, the possibility is probably very low. However, we feel this is a danger to Taiwan's democratic elections. For a long time, voters have voted for a candidate without knowing much about him or her. Should we allow this phenomenon to continue?
As a presidential candidate at this crucial juncture in Taiwan's history, Ma should accept a challenge in the same way as Hsieh did and clearly answer the following questions.
First, clear the air on the green card issue. A green card is a document that grants lawful permanent residency in the US, a prerequisite to immigrating to that country. That he applied for and received a green card indicates that Ma attempted to immigrate to the US in the 1970s when Taiwan was in a difficult situation.
This may not be a big issue for the general public, but as a possible national leader, we need to know what Ma was thinking at the time. Why did he consider leaving Taiwan? Is Taiwan no good?
Second, after losing power, all authoritarian parties have had to undergo a thorough reform process before regaining power. Ma should tell us how the KMT has changed during its eight years in opposition and what he did during his term as party chairman.
Why were the "black gold exclusion clauses" changed to allow him to run for the presidency? Why has he supported local factions with bad records during so many elections? If he was incapable of reforming the KMT, how could people trust him in managing the transformation of the entire nation?
Third, Ma lacks any outstanding achievement since he entered politics. This is ample evidence that he lacks administrative and executive capabilities. This lack of ability is worrying and causes people to lose faith in him.
The KMT is a 100-year-old party with extremely complex internal interests and conflicts, so how could Ma be sure that he would be running the country? Does he know what has happened to the party's ill-gotten assets or the ins and outs of the party's sale of its media companies -- the China Television Co, the Broadcasting Corp of China and the Central Motion Picture Corp? Can he be sure that he is not just a puppet of some more powerful force?
Fourth, over the past eight years the KMT has accused the DPP of cooperating with business conglomerates, but the KMT's relations with these conglomerates doesn't seem more virtuous.
For example, when Taipei Bank and Fubon Financial Holding Co merged when Ma was Taipei mayor, he illegally dismissed the Taipei Bank labor union chairman who was opposed to the deal. This clearly tells us that Ma will choose powerful business conglomerates over disadvantaged workers.
Worse yet, the draft amendment to the Labor Union Law (工會法) was sent to the legislature for a review during the last legislative session, it was blocked by the KMT. Could Ma explain why? When conflicts of interest arise between workers and business conglomerates, which side would Ma take?
Fifth, Ma has said he is Taiwanese to the death. Despite this, he has repeatedly promoted unification. Isn't there a contradiction in there somewhere? Is the word "Taiwanese" a regional or a national identification to him?
Could it be that his current claim to be a Taiwanese is aimed at eventually achieving his goal of becoming Chinese?
Some may argue that the forum to challenge Hsieh was simply an election ploy, but I am not going to dignify that with a refutation. I only hope Ma could also employ such "election ploys" and resolve these question marks hanging over him.
Yao Jen-to is an assistant professor in the Graduate Institute of Sociology at National Tsing Hua University.
Missed Opportunities for Ma, Voters
That the Chinese-language China Times recently printed a story containing rumors and unsubstantiated claims presented as fact should come as no surprise to people familiar with Taiwan's media.
But the latest example, on Feb. 22, when it quoted "unnamed aides" of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) accusing a foreign media organization of the kind of unethical behavior more commonly associated with the local press -- in this case colluding with the Government Information Office to give Ma a hard time ahead of the presidential election -- is noteworthy for two reasons.
First, it resulted in Euro News correspondent Sergio Cantone canceling his trip, losing Taiwan the chance for some valuable news exposure in 27 European countries. Second, it helped Ma avoid something that has been conspicuously absent in the buildup to the election -- an independent examination of his policies.
The fact that the interview would only have been broadcast in Europe and that few people here would have paid any attention to it did not seem to bother the Ma camp as it sought to protect their man from genuine scrutiny. But it needn't have worried, because there is already evidence that Ma doesn't hold up well when the questioning gets tough.
Who can forget Ma's famous lapse during his appearance on the BBC's Hardtalk program in February 2006? When driven into a corner by host Stephen Sackur about his belief in "one China" and unification, Ma resorted to patronizing language, accusing his inquisitor of not being "familiar with Chinese and Taiwanese affairs."
Or, on a visit to the Brookings Institution in March 2006, when the then KMT chairman was asked what he intended to do about bridging the political divide in Taiwan and bringing about political reconciliation, Ma -- presumably taken off guard -- proceeded to deliver an unrelated discourse on Taiwan's relations with APEC, much to the bemusement of the 150 or so high-profile guests in attendance.
But Ma is equally fallible when speaking at home, as his wishy-washy, incomplete responses to the promptings of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) rival Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) on a number of personal issues over the last few weeks have demonstrated.
This weakness may have also been behind Ma's decision to dodge Hsieh's numerous invitations to hold a real debate, which, contrary to Central Election Commission-organized talking shops, would have given the candidates the opportunity to really question each other and explore one another's presidential platforms.
It is easy to appear competent when one is given an easy ride. But being president of a country -- especially one in such a precarious position as Taiwan -- is not an easy job. It requires a decisive person, capable of making tough decisions.
Ma, who had a privileged upbringing, has never endured real hardship or had to fight for anything in his life, save perhaps the chairmanship of the KMT.
So how do voters know he has got what it takes to defend the nation's sovereignty from the very real internal and external threats it faces if he is elected president? The simple answer is that on the present evidence they don't, and after March 22 it will be too late.
Taipei Times Editorial, March 7, 2008.
But the latest example, on Feb. 22, when it quoted "unnamed aides" of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) accusing a foreign media organization of the kind of unethical behavior more commonly associated with the local press -- in this case colluding with the Government Information Office to give Ma a hard time ahead of the presidential election -- is noteworthy for two reasons.
First, it resulted in Euro News correspondent Sergio Cantone canceling his trip, losing Taiwan the chance for some valuable news exposure in 27 European countries. Second, it helped Ma avoid something that has been conspicuously absent in the buildup to the election -- an independent examination of his policies.
The fact that the interview would only have been broadcast in Europe and that few people here would have paid any attention to it did not seem to bother the Ma camp as it sought to protect their man from genuine scrutiny. But it needn't have worried, because there is already evidence that Ma doesn't hold up well when the questioning gets tough.
Who can forget Ma's famous lapse during his appearance on the BBC's Hardtalk program in February 2006? When driven into a corner by host Stephen Sackur about his belief in "one China" and unification, Ma resorted to patronizing language, accusing his inquisitor of not being "familiar with Chinese and Taiwanese affairs."
Or, on a visit to the Brookings Institution in March 2006, when the then KMT chairman was asked what he intended to do about bridging the political divide in Taiwan and bringing about political reconciliation, Ma -- presumably taken off guard -- proceeded to deliver an unrelated discourse on Taiwan's relations with APEC, much to the bemusement of the 150 or so high-profile guests in attendance.
But Ma is equally fallible when speaking at home, as his wishy-washy, incomplete responses to the promptings of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) rival Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) on a number of personal issues over the last few weeks have demonstrated.
This weakness may have also been behind Ma's decision to dodge Hsieh's numerous invitations to hold a real debate, which, contrary to Central Election Commission-organized talking shops, would have given the candidates the opportunity to really question each other and explore one another's presidential platforms.
It is easy to appear competent when one is given an easy ride. But being president of a country -- especially one in such a precarious position as Taiwan -- is not an easy job. It requires a decisive person, capable of making tough decisions.
Ma, who had a privileged upbringing, has never endured real hardship or had to fight for anything in his life, save perhaps the chairmanship of the KMT.
So how do voters know he has got what it takes to defend the nation's sovereignty from the very real internal and external threats it faces if he is elected president? The simple answer is that on the present evidence they don't, and after March 22 it will be too late.
Taipei Times Editorial, March 7, 2008.
2008年3月5日 星期三
Green Cards and Sovereignty
Huang Jei-Hsuan of California
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) surreptitious hedge on the fate of Taiwan's sovereignty has come home to roost.
The uproar surrounding his loyalties stems from the KMT's haphazard handling of Taiwan's sovereignty. This long-standing mindset is itself a manifestation of the party's ultimate goal of uniting Taiwan with China.
The fact that Ma and the KMT are running his presidential campaign by focusing on integrating Taiwan's economy into China's while muddling all underlying sovereignty issues further underscores the urgency of vetting Ma in that particular light.
During his mercurial rise Ma has at times attempted to convince the Taiwanese people that he is a Chinese Taiwanese. Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) once even went so far as to proclaim Ma a "new" Taiwanese. Ma's US green card brouhaha has complicated those claims.
Should it be found that Ma kept his green card in the closet for years, and that the primary reason he tried to become an American in the first place was an instinctive yearning to belong to a nation when the one he was attached to up to that juncture was fast sinking into a "non-nation," the fundamental legitimacy of Ma's candidacy would be called into question. It would indicate the lack an undivided allegiance to Taiwan.
Significantly, Ma applied for his green card in 1974, three years after Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) abandoned the Republic Of China's (ROC) seat at the UN and at the height of public anxiety over the imminent derecognition of Chiang's ROC by the US. Equally noteworthy is the fact that Chiang concurrently turned down an opportunity to remain in the UN by refusing to define Taiwan's sovereignty, marking the beginning of another chapter of the KMT's treachery toward Taiwan.
In other words, Ma was, if not still is, a person with a nation while nearly all Taiwanese weren't, at least not with an internationally recognized one, a reality which Chiang ascertained in 1971. This, combined with the fact that Ma has always vehemently defended the notion that the ROC is a state, speaks volume on Ma's disingenuousness.
Ma's constant aversion to an independent Taiwan compounds that outrage. So does his continuing objection to a referendum for a UN bid using the name "Taiwan" that would expand the nation's international space in the long run.
These sentiments reflect the contradiction of Ma's pursuing an office that symbolizes Taiwan's sovereignty, the very subject Ma and the KMT are trying to compromise at every turn.
The moral of Ma's situation should serve as a reminder to the Taiwanese people of the relevancy of issues pertaining to democratization and sovereignty in this month's poll.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) surreptitious hedge on the fate of Taiwan's sovereignty has come home to roost.
The uproar surrounding his loyalties stems from the KMT's haphazard handling of Taiwan's sovereignty. This long-standing mindset is itself a manifestation of the party's ultimate goal of uniting Taiwan with China.
The fact that Ma and the KMT are running his presidential campaign by focusing on integrating Taiwan's economy into China's while muddling all underlying sovereignty issues further underscores the urgency of vetting Ma in that particular light.
During his mercurial rise Ma has at times attempted to convince the Taiwanese people that he is a Chinese Taiwanese. Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) once even went so far as to proclaim Ma a "new" Taiwanese. Ma's US green card brouhaha has complicated those claims.
Should it be found that Ma kept his green card in the closet for years, and that the primary reason he tried to become an American in the first place was an instinctive yearning to belong to a nation when the one he was attached to up to that juncture was fast sinking into a "non-nation," the fundamental legitimacy of Ma's candidacy would be called into question. It would indicate the lack an undivided allegiance to Taiwan.
Significantly, Ma applied for his green card in 1974, three years after Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) abandoned the Republic Of China's (ROC) seat at the UN and at the height of public anxiety over the imminent derecognition of Chiang's ROC by the US. Equally noteworthy is the fact that Chiang concurrently turned down an opportunity to remain in the UN by refusing to define Taiwan's sovereignty, marking the beginning of another chapter of the KMT's treachery toward Taiwan.
In other words, Ma was, if not still is, a person with a nation while nearly all Taiwanese weren't, at least not with an internationally recognized one, a reality which Chiang ascertained in 1971. This, combined with the fact that Ma has always vehemently defended the notion that the ROC is a state, speaks volume on Ma's disingenuousness.
Ma's constant aversion to an independent Taiwan compounds that outrage. So does his continuing objection to a referendum for a UN bid using the name "Taiwan" that would expand the nation's international space in the long run.
These sentiments reflect the contradiction of Ma's pursuing an office that symbolizes Taiwan's sovereignty, the very subject Ma and the KMT are trying to compromise at every turn.
The moral of Ma's situation should serve as a reminder to the Taiwanese people of the relevancy of issues pertaining to democratization and sovereignty in this month's poll.
KMT Caucus Has Tricks New and Old
A mere two weeks into the new legislative session, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus has already given the public and its Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Non-Partisan Solidarity Union (NPSU) counterparts a taste of its two-thirds majority in the Legislative Yuan.
On Feb. 27, during the first Procedure Committee meeting, the KMT blocked several bills from advancing to a review in their respective legislative committees. Among them was a draft bill that would require the KMT to return its stolen assets, the Cabinet's request to abolish the Organic Law of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall Management Office (中正紀念堂管理處組織條例), to amend the Income Tax Law (所得稅法) and to abolish tax-exempt status for military personnel, civil servants and public school teachers.
Moreover, despite KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) insistence on the importance of letting sunshine bills pass, the KMT caucus on Tuesday chose to ignore a legislative decision and pushed proposed amendments to the Public Functionary Assets Disclosure Law (公職人員財產申報法), the Civil Servants Conflict of Interests Prevention Act (公務人員利益迴避法) and the Political Donation Law (政治獻金法) back to a first reading, citing no urgent need to put the amendments directly to a second reading.
Then there was the "winner takes all" approach, in which the KMT lawmakers dominated the Legislative Yuan's committee head elections on Monday, winning 15 of the 16 seats in the eight standing committees.
The KMT caucus' aggression even angered its longtime ally, NPSU Legislator Yen Ching-piao (顏清標), who was annoyed at the KMT caucus for failing to keep its promise to leave at least one committee top job for the NPSU.
There was also the brazen demonstration of indifference to conflicts of interest by a number of KMT lawmakers, including Wu Ching-chih (吳清池) and Chiu Yi (邱毅), who despite being embroiled in legal cases, shamelessly signed up to be members of the Judiciary Committee and the Organic Laws and Statutes Committee, with Wu actually elected as one of the committee heads.
In view of the ongoing madness in the legislature, who should be held responsible, the KMT or Ma?
It appears that the KMT presidential hopeful has no influence of any sort over his party's lawmakers and is unable to keep them in line. Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that he did not even issue a word of condemnation toward these lawmakers' agendas.
With the March 22 presidential election almost upon us, one would think lawmakers would want to be on their best behavior to avoid doing anything that may affect their presidential candidate's electoral prospects. But apparently these lawmakers have no scruples in squandering taxpayer money by placing partisanship and self-interest above the well-being of the nation.
Pity the voters who thought they were doing something positive for the country when they cast their ballots on Jan. 12.
Taipei Times Editorial, March 6, 2008.
On Feb. 27, during the first Procedure Committee meeting, the KMT blocked several bills from advancing to a review in their respective legislative committees. Among them was a draft bill that would require the KMT to return its stolen assets, the Cabinet's request to abolish the Organic Law of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall Management Office (中正紀念堂管理處組織條例), to amend the Income Tax Law (所得稅法) and to abolish tax-exempt status for military personnel, civil servants and public school teachers.
Moreover, despite KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) insistence on the importance of letting sunshine bills pass, the KMT caucus on Tuesday chose to ignore a legislative decision and pushed proposed amendments to the Public Functionary Assets Disclosure Law (公職人員財產申報法), the Civil Servants Conflict of Interests Prevention Act (公務人員利益迴避法) and the Political Donation Law (政治獻金法) back to a first reading, citing no urgent need to put the amendments directly to a second reading.
Then there was the "winner takes all" approach, in which the KMT lawmakers dominated the Legislative Yuan's committee head elections on Monday, winning 15 of the 16 seats in the eight standing committees.
The KMT caucus' aggression even angered its longtime ally, NPSU Legislator Yen Ching-piao (顏清標), who was annoyed at the KMT caucus for failing to keep its promise to leave at least one committee top job for the NPSU.
There was also the brazen demonstration of indifference to conflicts of interest by a number of KMT lawmakers, including Wu Ching-chih (吳清池) and Chiu Yi (邱毅), who despite being embroiled in legal cases, shamelessly signed up to be members of the Judiciary Committee and the Organic Laws and Statutes Committee, with Wu actually elected as one of the committee heads.
In view of the ongoing madness in the legislature, who should be held responsible, the KMT or Ma?
It appears that the KMT presidential hopeful has no influence of any sort over his party's lawmakers and is unable to keep them in line. Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that he did not even issue a word of condemnation toward these lawmakers' agendas.
With the March 22 presidential election almost upon us, one would think lawmakers would want to be on their best behavior to avoid doing anything that may affect their presidential candidate's electoral prospects. But apparently these lawmakers have no scruples in squandering taxpayer money by placing partisanship and self-interest above the well-being of the nation.
Pity the voters who thought they were doing something positive for the country when they cast their ballots on Jan. 12.
Taipei Times Editorial, March 6, 2008.
2008年3月3日 星期一
A Vote for One Man is a Vote for the Future
By Cao Changqing 曹長青, translated by Anna Stiggelbout and Ted Yang
Last Thursday, 100,000 people gathered at Taipei's Zhongshan Soccer Stadium to commemorate the 228 Incident. The nature of the tragedy that took place 61 years ago was two-fold: The Chiang family asserted its autocratic rule by means of a massacre; and the alien regime used violence to destroy Taiwanese identity. Therefore, commemorating the victims of the 228 Incident is an effort not only to prevent the recurrence of such a tragedy but to improve the democratic system and safeguard Taiwanese identity.
For Taiwanese, "identity" means that they have the right to decide what their own culture and country are. But if the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) were to stage a comeback in the presidential elections less than 20 days from now, it would cast a shadow on democracy and damage Taiwanese identity.
First, now that the pan-blue political parties control three-quarters of the legislative seats, if the KMT were to gain executive power, there would be no system of checks and balances in the government. Taiwan would become a single-party system and thus less democratic.
An example of this is Singapore, where the party of former prime minister Lee Kwan Yew (李光耀), controls more than three-quarters of the legislative seats and rules the city-state as a one-party authoritarian regime. Singapore was ranked as "not free" in the Global Press Freedom 2007 report by the human-rights organization Freedom House.
Such a situation is very rare in Western countries with mature democracies. If we allow a political party that autocratically ruled Taiwan for half of a century and now has close relations with rival China to completely control Taiwan's political system, the consequences could be grim.
Also, the KMT candidates' plan for a common market with China comes down to killing Taiwanese identity with soft measures, as opposed to oppressing it with violence as in the 228 Incident. A common market is another path paving the way for unification.
Because of the US, China cannot annex Taiwan by military means, so Beijing's other is to engender economic and cultural unification. The common market policy of KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his followers is exactly what Beijing wants, because this allows the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to use its tactics and to exercise influence in Taiwan under the guise of a common market.
Chinese products, Chinese culture and Chinese ideology -- that is, chauvinism with nationalism at the core -- will enter Taiwan, and the pan-blue camp will chime in. The result could very well be the formation of a pro-unification mentality that would eventually take Taiwan toward some form of unification. By that time, even if Ma doesn't want unification, it might be hard to avoid. In any case Ma has said he wants "eventual reunification."
This is like the Chiang era, when Taiwan forged an anti-communist mentality. At that time, even if Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) or his son Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) came up with new ideas, such as when former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) brought up an alliance with the CCP, such ideas could not be put into practice, even though the Chiangs had power. This was because the mentality of society as a whole had made such ideas impossible.
The common market policy paves the way toward a mentality that is completely contrary to that of the Chiang era -- a pro-Chinese mentality -- and eventually to a pro-Beijing and pro-unification mentality. Once this mentality is formed, it might be very difficult to defend not just Taiwanese identity, but Taiwan's democracy and independence.
That's why the presidential election is not just a choice between two men, but a choice for the future of Taiwan.
Cao Changqing is a political commentator based in the US.
Last Thursday, 100,000 people gathered at Taipei's Zhongshan Soccer Stadium to commemorate the 228 Incident. The nature of the tragedy that took place 61 years ago was two-fold: The Chiang family asserted its autocratic rule by means of a massacre; and the alien regime used violence to destroy Taiwanese identity. Therefore, commemorating the victims of the 228 Incident is an effort not only to prevent the recurrence of such a tragedy but to improve the democratic system and safeguard Taiwanese identity.
For Taiwanese, "identity" means that they have the right to decide what their own culture and country are. But if the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) were to stage a comeback in the presidential elections less than 20 days from now, it would cast a shadow on democracy and damage Taiwanese identity.
First, now that the pan-blue political parties control three-quarters of the legislative seats, if the KMT were to gain executive power, there would be no system of checks and balances in the government. Taiwan would become a single-party system and thus less democratic.
An example of this is Singapore, where the party of former prime minister Lee Kwan Yew (李光耀), controls more than three-quarters of the legislative seats and rules the city-state as a one-party authoritarian regime. Singapore was ranked as "not free" in the Global Press Freedom 2007 report by the human-rights organization Freedom House.
Such a situation is very rare in Western countries with mature democracies. If we allow a political party that autocratically ruled Taiwan for half of a century and now has close relations with rival China to completely control Taiwan's political system, the consequences could be grim.
Also, the KMT candidates' plan for a common market with China comes down to killing Taiwanese identity with soft measures, as opposed to oppressing it with violence as in the 228 Incident. A common market is another path paving the way for unification.
Because of the US, China cannot annex Taiwan by military means, so Beijing's other is to engender economic and cultural unification. The common market policy of KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his followers is exactly what Beijing wants, because this allows the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to use its tactics and to exercise influence in Taiwan under the guise of a common market.
Chinese products, Chinese culture and Chinese ideology -- that is, chauvinism with nationalism at the core -- will enter Taiwan, and the pan-blue camp will chime in. The result could very well be the formation of a pro-unification mentality that would eventually take Taiwan toward some form of unification. By that time, even if Ma doesn't want unification, it might be hard to avoid. In any case Ma has said he wants "eventual reunification."
This is like the Chiang era, when Taiwan forged an anti-communist mentality. At that time, even if Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) or his son Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) came up with new ideas, such as when former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) brought up an alliance with the CCP, such ideas could not be put into practice, even though the Chiangs had power. This was because the mentality of society as a whole had made such ideas impossible.
The common market policy paves the way toward a mentality that is completely contrary to that of the Chiang era -- a pro-Chinese mentality -- and eventually to a pro-Beijing and pro-unification mentality. Once this mentality is formed, it might be very difficult to defend not just Taiwanese identity, but Taiwan's democracy and independence.
That's why the presidential election is not just a choice between two men, but a choice for the future of Taiwan.
Cao Changqing is a political commentator based in the US.
2008年3月2日 星期日
First Debate Earns Mixed Review
By Edward Chen 陳一新, translated by Angela Hong
THE FIRST TELEVISED presidential debate left me feeling that the first and second part, with questions from the public, were well designed although more akin to a press conference than a debate. The third part, where the candidates questioned each other, was simply an extension of their usual war of words. Finally, during the concluding remarks in the fourth part, one party continued to question the opponent's issues whereas the other party offered his visions, so that the two were wholly unrelated to each other.
In the first two parts, both Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) showed a good grasp of policy, and both appeared at their best.
Hsieh's strong point lay in his analysis of policy trends through references to his achievements as Kaohsiung mayor and as premier, while seizing opportunities to attack his opponent. For instance, Hsieh demanded that the KMT divide its party assets among low-income earners in order to raise the average income.
Ma's strength, on the other hand, was to answer questions clearly within the allotted time, with references integrating his experiences as Taipei mayor and KMT chairman with information prepared by his staff.
Hsieh's strengths were Ma's weaknesses, and vice versa. For instance, on issues dealing with the economy and the standard of living, Hsieh's talent for debate was unquestionable. He was able to strategically avoid questions, point out inconsistencies in his opponent's policy for raising national income or subsidizing low-income earners, and ask him where funds are to be found.
In comparison, Ma answered every question that was asked, emphasizing his frankness and reliability. Also, Hsieh's responses on judicial reform, foreign policy and gay rights appeared to be completely detached from reality. Indeed, on the issue of how he would deal with corruption if elected, he completely missed the point and focused on irrelevancies. In contrast, Ma could hardly wait to deliver the goods to the audience. As for time management, Ma rarely exceeded the allotted time, whereas Hsieh routinely ran over his time so that his answers often were incomplete. Their performance demonstrated Ma's preparation and the need for Hsieh's camp to improve.
During the policy questioning sections, Hsieh won in answering questions about Taiwanese identity -- partially because Hsieh is truly Taiwanese -- although Ma had vastly improved his pro-localization discourse through his "long stays" in the countryside. Although Hsieh had a good grasp on economic and livelihood issues, Ma was most successful in his criticism of the DPP's isolationist attitude, and in his strong faith in his ability to improve cross-strait relations and boost the economy through government investment.
The final question, asking each candidate to list the other's strengths, finally relaxed the previously combative and tense atmosphere. Both candidates were humorous and deserved the applause they received.
I had hoped that both candidates would perform better when questioning each other. However, the results were disappointing. Hsieh's first question was whether Ma held a US green card 20 or 30 years ago. This negative issue may have forced Ma to change tack and turn to criticizing the DPP's failure to fulfill its promise to take care of central and southern Taiwan, small and medium-sized businesses, and low to middle-income earners. Hsieh then attacked Ma for failing to revamp the Tamshui River and Jiancheng Circle.
Finally, the kid gloves came off and the two blasted each other for corruption at the hands of subordinates during their tenure as public officials. Nine minutes was wasted on mud slinging, and not a word about Taiwan's future was mentioned.
Worth noting is the fact that while Ma was forced to stay on the offensive, he only criticized Hsieh on a policy level, and did not mention the controversial tape recording that helped Hsieh win the Kaohsiung mayoral election, or the anti-Hsieh conspiracy theories.
In the last section of the debate, Hsieh relentlessly pursued the green card issue and questioned Ma's capability and trustworthiness. Ma outlined his vision for saving Taiwan's economy, assisting marginalized groups, reducing the difference between rural and urban areas, forming a government without corruption, and constructing a harmonious society.
It is a pity that Hsieh failed to make the best of these precious three minutes by discussing the future. Ma's conclusion was concise and powerful, demonstrating a presidential candidate's breadth of vision and elevated character.
On the whole, Hsieh's debating skills remain undoubted. However, his adeptness at dodging questions makes it difficult the public to probe his character through questions and follow-up questions. There are two ways of improving this situation.
First, questions from the public can be kept secret to prevent candidates from giving prepared responses and questioners should be allowed two follow-up questions.
Second, the debate organizers could invite specialists recommended by both sides to form a question team, so that candidates would have no way of hiding their intentions from the public. In terms of policy, both candidates have their own merits. Yet in regards to specific solutions to problems facing the nation, Ma apparently was more able to grasp the general future direction. While both candidates showed a sense of humor, they maintained their characteristic trademarks: One came off as tactful and smooth, the other as frank and honest.
Being a famed orator, Hsieh's performance was rather disappointing, perhaps a case of underperforming because of pressure. Ma also had many shortcomings that need improving. However, Ma had a clearer vision of the nation's future and many commendable character traits.
Edward Chen is a professor at Tamkang University's Graduate Institute of American Studies.
"....commendable character traits"!?
I guess corruption does pay!
As for "clearer vision of the nation's future", first off, there's this issue regarding the word "nation" that I don't think Ma is too comfortable talking about; and the vision thing, being "clear" does not equal being "better" for Taiwan.
THE FIRST TELEVISED presidential debate left me feeling that the first and second part, with questions from the public, were well designed although more akin to a press conference than a debate. The third part, where the candidates questioned each other, was simply an extension of their usual war of words. Finally, during the concluding remarks in the fourth part, one party continued to question the opponent's issues whereas the other party offered his visions, so that the two were wholly unrelated to each other.
In the first two parts, both Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) showed a good grasp of policy, and both appeared at their best.
Hsieh's strong point lay in his analysis of policy trends through references to his achievements as Kaohsiung mayor and as premier, while seizing opportunities to attack his opponent. For instance, Hsieh demanded that the KMT divide its party assets among low-income earners in order to raise the average income.
Ma's strength, on the other hand, was to answer questions clearly within the allotted time, with references integrating his experiences as Taipei mayor and KMT chairman with information prepared by his staff.
Hsieh's strengths were Ma's weaknesses, and vice versa. For instance, on issues dealing with the economy and the standard of living, Hsieh's talent for debate was unquestionable. He was able to strategically avoid questions, point out inconsistencies in his opponent's policy for raising national income or subsidizing low-income earners, and ask him where funds are to be found.
In comparison, Ma answered every question that was asked, emphasizing his frankness and reliability. Also, Hsieh's responses on judicial reform, foreign policy and gay rights appeared to be completely detached from reality. Indeed, on the issue of how he would deal with corruption if elected, he completely missed the point and focused on irrelevancies. In contrast, Ma could hardly wait to deliver the goods to the audience. As for time management, Ma rarely exceeded the allotted time, whereas Hsieh routinely ran over his time so that his answers often were incomplete. Their performance demonstrated Ma's preparation and the need for Hsieh's camp to improve.
During the policy questioning sections, Hsieh won in answering questions about Taiwanese identity -- partially because Hsieh is truly Taiwanese -- although Ma had vastly improved his pro-localization discourse through his "long stays" in the countryside. Although Hsieh had a good grasp on economic and livelihood issues, Ma was most successful in his criticism of the DPP's isolationist attitude, and in his strong faith in his ability to improve cross-strait relations and boost the economy through government investment.
The final question, asking each candidate to list the other's strengths, finally relaxed the previously combative and tense atmosphere. Both candidates were humorous and deserved the applause they received.
I had hoped that both candidates would perform better when questioning each other. However, the results were disappointing. Hsieh's first question was whether Ma held a US green card 20 or 30 years ago. This negative issue may have forced Ma to change tack and turn to criticizing the DPP's failure to fulfill its promise to take care of central and southern Taiwan, small and medium-sized businesses, and low to middle-income earners. Hsieh then attacked Ma for failing to revamp the Tamshui River and Jiancheng Circle.
Finally, the kid gloves came off and the two blasted each other for corruption at the hands of subordinates during their tenure as public officials. Nine minutes was wasted on mud slinging, and not a word about Taiwan's future was mentioned.
Worth noting is the fact that while Ma was forced to stay on the offensive, he only criticized Hsieh on a policy level, and did not mention the controversial tape recording that helped Hsieh win the Kaohsiung mayoral election, or the anti-Hsieh conspiracy theories.
In the last section of the debate, Hsieh relentlessly pursued the green card issue and questioned Ma's capability and trustworthiness. Ma outlined his vision for saving Taiwan's economy, assisting marginalized groups, reducing the difference between rural and urban areas, forming a government without corruption, and constructing a harmonious society.
It is a pity that Hsieh failed to make the best of these precious three minutes by discussing the future. Ma's conclusion was concise and powerful, demonstrating a presidential candidate's breadth of vision and elevated character.
On the whole, Hsieh's debating skills remain undoubted. However, his adeptness at dodging questions makes it difficult the public to probe his character through questions and follow-up questions. There are two ways of improving this situation.
First, questions from the public can be kept secret to prevent candidates from giving prepared responses and questioners should be allowed two follow-up questions.
Second, the debate organizers could invite specialists recommended by both sides to form a question team, so that candidates would have no way of hiding their intentions from the public. In terms of policy, both candidates have their own merits. Yet in regards to specific solutions to problems facing the nation, Ma apparently was more able to grasp the general future direction. While both candidates showed a sense of humor, they maintained their characteristic trademarks: One came off as tactful and smooth, the other as frank and honest.
Being a famed orator, Hsieh's performance was rather disappointing, perhaps a case of underperforming because of pressure. Ma also had many shortcomings that need improving. However, Ma had a clearer vision of the nation's future and many commendable character traits.
Edward Chen is a professor at Tamkang University's Graduate Institute of American Studies.
"....commendable character traits"!?
I guess corruption does pay!
As for "clearer vision of the nation's future", first off, there's this issue regarding the word "nation" that I don't think Ma is too comfortable talking about; and the vision thing, being "clear" does not equal being "better" for Taiwan.
2008年2月26日 星期二
Freedom Must Win on March 22
By Li Thian-hok 李天福
On March 22, the Taiwanese should vote for freedom, not servitude. Vote for hope, do not stay away in despair.
Taiwan's presidential race pitting the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) against Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has been sharply negative.
With less than one month to voting day on March 22 there has been no substantive debate on the real issues challenging Taiwan's survival as a de facto independent country. What is at stake in the upcoming presidential election is no less than Taiwan's sovereignty and democracy.
The KMT now controls three-quarters of the Legislative Yuan, giving the party virtually unrestrained power to pass any laws it chooses. If Ma is elected president, he will control the Executive Yuan as well, thus giving the KMT the authority to adopt policies that will deliver Taiwan irretrievably into China's grasp.
On March 22, 2006, Ma gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a prestigious think tank in Washington. He promised then that if elected, he would negotiate a peace accord with Beijing right away. The prerequisite is, of course, that the Taiwanese government accepts China's claim of sovereignty over Taiwan.
Yet a great majority of the Taiwanese people reject Beijing rule.
This is evident in the popular support for President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) proposed referendum to apply for UN membership under the name "Taiwan." Nevertheless such a referendum is useful in demonstrating the people's desire for an independent, democratic state, which is recognized as a full and equal member of the international community.
Before such a goal can be realized, however, the Taiwanese people must build the foundation of a viable nation including the following six elements: strong national defense, a self-reliant economy, deft diplomacy, a consensus on national identity, a new constitution and finally, when the time is ripe, a formal declaration of independence.
The first four elements are interrelated and must be achieved before the last two steps become feasible.
To bolster national defense, the defense budget should be increased from 2.85 percent of GDP to 5 percent in two years. Israel enjoys military superiority over its Arab neighbors and strong support from the US. Its defense budget is 9.6 percent of GDP. The conscript's service should be lengthened to 18 months. Modern warfare requires longer training periods to master high-tech weapons and joint force operations. Readiness needs to be improved, for example, by stocking at least one month of strategic oil reserve, ammunition and other war materiel. A civil defense system should be established so as to avoid panic and reduce casualties.
To build a self-reliant economy, the Taiwanese government should encourage the return of businesses from China and diversification into other countries, such as Vietnam. Taiwanese investment in China as a percentage of GDP is about 90 times the equivalent figure for the US and Japan. It is excessive and detrimental to Taiwan's national and economic security.
Good relations with the US are vital to Taiwan's survival as a democratic state. There needs to be better high level communication between the two democratic allies and advanced consultation whenever Taipei decides to take any action which Beijing or Washington may perceive as provocative. After new presidents are in the White House and in Taipei, there could be a new beginning to restore mutual trust and to foster closer political and economic and cooperation. The report just published by the AEI and Armitage International Taiwan Policy Working Group contains many helpful proposals.
To build solid relations with the US, Taiwan must demonstrate by deeds that it is serious about national defense and that it loves freedom more than money.
With the pan-blue camp's super majority in the Legislative Yuan, the agenda proposed above may seem beyond reach. This is where national unity based on allegiance to Taiwan becomes relevant. Except for the old guard elements of the pan-blue parties, a great majority of the public identifies with Taiwan. They also prefer democracy and reject autocracy.
The pan-blue minority that pledges allegiance to China and opposes Taiwanese independence actually works against the welfare of the 1.3 billion Chinese people. China is at a crossroads in history. It is pursuing military aggrandizement and territorial expansion, heading ultimately toward conflict with the US, Japan and the Western democracies. Taiwan's capitulation will accelerate China's confrontation with the West.
Alternatively, China can pursue peaceful development, diverting its vast military expenditures to alleviate poverty, improve the badly degraded environment and provide a social safety net for the masses.
China can embark on political reform, by allowing political opposition, a free press and religious freedom and try to end the endemic official corruption. By becoming a responsible stakeholder in the global community, China can earn respect as a great and humane power. Taiwan can help steer China in this direction by serving as a beacon of freedom to the Chinese people.
Hsieh must address the critical issue of how to maintain Taiwan's fragile "status quo" by outlining a concrete agenda. Only by offering his green base and middle-of-the-road voters a vision of Taiwan's future that is firmly anchored in irreconcilable freedom can Hsieh hope to win the presidency. Time is short. Let us hope Hsieh has managed to convey a sense of crisis to voters and make them understand that the choice is between life with freedom and dignity or servitude under the repressive rule of the Chinese Communist Party in the near future.
Regarding Taiwan's future, Ma asserts that the choice between independence and unification is a false issue. He appears to believe his three noes policy -- no independence, no unification and no war -- will maintain the "status quo" indefinitely.
This is a deceptive slogan.
The People's Liberation Army (PLA) is already capable of launching a multi-pronged assault on Taiwan and occupying the island in a short time, absent US intervention. Beijing has declared that China will resort to nonpeaceful means to annex Taiwan if the island drags its feet in accepting China's terms of surrender. So Ma can guarantee no war only if he is ready to accept unification.
Ma has deeply ingrained anti-democratic instincts as a result of his KMT upbringing.
The 81-day red shirt protest in the fall of 2006 was an attempt to unseat President Chen Shui-bian through the extralegal means of unruly, massive street demonstrations. As mayor of Taipei, Ma not only fanned the flames of the protests, he said at the height of the crisis: "If Chen doesn't resign, he will die an ugly death. The bullet is in the chamber. The gun is cocked. The next step is to pull the trigger."
If Ma wins the presidency, the KMT could install a Singapore-type political system, that is, a one-party autocracy.
Li Thian-hok is a freelance commentator based in Pennsylvania.
On March 22, the Taiwanese should vote for freedom, not servitude. Vote for hope, do not stay away in despair.
Taiwan's presidential race pitting the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) against Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has been sharply negative.
With less than one month to voting day on March 22 there has been no substantive debate on the real issues challenging Taiwan's survival as a de facto independent country. What is at stake in the upcoming presidential election is no less than Taiwan's sovereignty and democracy.
The KMT now controls three-quarters of the Legislative Yuan, giving the party virtually unrestrained power to pass any laws it chooses. If Ma is elected president, he will control the Executive Yuan as well, thus giving the KMT the authority to adopt policies that will deliver Taiwan irretrievably into China's grasp.
On March 22, 2006, Ma gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a prestigious think tank in Washington. He promised then that if elected, he would negotiate a peace accord with Beijing right away. The prerequisite is, of course, that the Taiwanese government accepts China's claim of sovereignty over Taiwan.
Yet a great majority of the Taiwanese people reject Beijing rule.
This is evident in the popular support for President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) proposed referendum to apply for UN membership under the name "Taiwan." Nevertheless such a referendum is useful in demonstrating the people's desire for an independent, democratic state, which is recognized as a full and equal member of the international community.
Before such a goal can be realized, however, the Taiwanese people must build the foundation of a viable nation including the following six elements: strong national defense, a self-reliant economy, deft diplomacy, a consensus on national identity, a new constitution and finally, when the time is ripe, a formal declaration of independence.
The first four elements are interrelated and must be achieved before the last two steps become feasible.
To bolster national defense, the defense budget should be increased from 2.85 percent of GDP to 5 percent in two years. Israel enjoys military superiority over its Arab neighbors and strong support from the US. Its defense budget is 9.6 percent of GDP. The conscript's service should be lengthened to 18 months. Modern warfare requires longer training periods to master high-tech weapons and joint force operations. Readiness needs to be improved, for example, by stocking at least one month of strategic oil reserve, ammunition and other war materiel. A civil defense system should be established so as to avoid panic and reduce casualties.
To build a self-reliant economy, the Taiwanese government should encourage the return of businesses from China and diversification into other countries, such as Vietnam. Taiwanese investment in China as a percentage of GDP is about 90 times the equivalent figure for the US and Japan. It is excessive and detrimental to Taiwan's national and economic security.
Good relations with the US are vital to Taiwan's survival as a democratic state. There needs to be better high level communication between the two democratic allies and advanced consultation whenever Taipei decides to take any action which Beijing or Washington may perceive as provocative. After new presidents are in the White House and in Taipei, there could be a new beginning to restore mutual trust and to foster closer political and economic and cooperation. The report just published by the AEI and Armitage International Taiwan Policy Working Group contains many helpful proposals.
To build solid relations with the US, Taiwan must demonstrate by deeds that it is serious about national defense and that it loves freedom more than money.
With the pan-blue camp's super majority in the Legislative Yuan, the agenda proposed above may seem beyond reach. This is where national unity based on allegiance to Taiwan becomes relevant. Except for the old guard elements of the pan-blue parties, a great majority of the public identifies with Taiwan. They also prefer democracy and reject autocracy.
The pan-blue minority that pledges allegiance to China and opposes Taiwanese independence actually works against the welfare of the 1.3 billion Chinese people. China is at a crossroads in history. It is pursuing military aggrandizement and territorial expansion, heading ultimately toward conflict with the US, Japan and the Western democracies. Taiwan's capitulation will accelerate China's confrontation with the West.
Alternatively, China can pursue peaceful development, diverting its vast military expenditures to alleviate poverty, improve the badly degraded environment and provide a social safety net for the masses.
China can embark on political reform, by allowing political opposition, a free press and religious freedom and try to end the endemic official corruption. By becoming a responsible stakeholder in the global community, China can earn respect as a great and humane power. Taiwan can help steer China in this direction by serving as a beacon of freedom to the Chinese people.
Hsieh must address the critical issue of how to maintain Taiwan's fragile "status quo" by outlining a concrete agenda. Only by offering his green base and middle-of-the-road voters a vision of Taiwan's future that is firmly anchored in irreconcilable freedom can Hsieh hope to win the presidency. Time is short. Let us hope Hsieh has managed to convey a sense of crisis to voters and make them understand that the choice is between life with freedom and dignity or servitude under the repressive rule of the Chinese Communist Party in the near future.
Regarding Taiwan's future, Ma asserts that the choice between independence and unification is a false issue. He appears to believe his three noes policy -- no independence, no unification and no war -- will maintain the "status quo" indefinitely.
This is a deceptive slogan.
The People's Liberation Army (PLA) is already capable of launching a multi-pronged assault on Taiwan and occupying the island in a short time, absent US intervention. Beijing has declared that China will resort to nonpeaceful means to annex Taiwan if the island drags its feet in accepting China's terms of surrender. So Ma can guarantee no war only if he is ready to accept unification.
Ma has deeply ingrained anti-democratic instincts as a result of his KMT upbringing.
The 81-day red shirt protest in the fall of 2006 was an attempt to unseat President Chen Shui-bian through the extralegal means of unruly, massive street demonstrations. As mayor of Taipei, Ma not only fanned the flames of the protests, he said at the height of the crisis: "If Chen doesn't resign, he will die an ugly death. The bullet is in the chamber. The gun is cocked. The next step is to pull the trigger."
If Ma wins the presidency, the KMT could install a Singapore-type political system, that is, a one-party autocracy.
Li Thian-hok is a freelance commentator based in Pennsylvania.
2008年1月22日 星期二
Common Yet Different Democracies
By Kurt Campbell
Last week, newspapers in New Hampshire and Taiwan -- thousands of kilometers apart and meant for vastly different audiences with completely different cultures and political traditions -- carried eerily familiar pictures. In one, a despondent Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) supporter was seen somewhat in shock after the results of the legislative elections were announced, which saw a rout of the DPP at the hands of rival Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidates. The picture was accompanied by a story of what this would mean for the presidential election in March.
At the same time, a Nashua, New Hampshire, newspaper carried a very similar picture of a deflated supporter of Representative Barack Obama trudging dejectedly through the thick snow after Hillary Clinton's surprise upset in the Democratic primary.
While there is much that separates the US and Taiwan -- very different histories, national aspirations and worldviews -- there are still important things that unite them. The US and Taiwan each possesses among the most active and participatory democracies in the world and the intensity of the two presidential campaigns are cases in point.
There has been extensive discussion of late of a worrisome drift in the US-Taiwan relationship and there are indeed signs of discord and clear areas for worry.
President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) seemingly insatiable push for a referendum on joining the UN has drawn particular ire from the Bush administration. So too have persistent disagreements about defense spending and participation in international institutions created occasional tensions between Washington and Taipei.
These instances of disagreement and discord take place amid the background of China's dramatic rise to great power status. It is undeniable that China now plays a much larger role in Washington's calculation on virtually every matter of global importance, from North Korean nuclear weapons to currency woes to energy anxieties to unrest in Pakistan.
The US now needs a constructive partnership with China as never before, which has resulted in Taiwan feeling increasingly squeezed by the growing weight of China in all matters of international diplomacy and commerce.
Nevertheless, what is often forgotten behind the banal bromides that celebrate the vibrancy of Taiwanese democracy is that the US and Taiwan share a common experience of democracy, including all its many disappointments, difficulties and dilemmas that cannot be easily ignored.
Indeed, national leaders who are regularly subjected to the difficult discipline of polling stations and voting booths understand each other at some very basic, core level.
While US officials often claim to be mystified by a Taiwanese move or maneuver on an issue related to identity or national character, the truth is that deep down, Americans of virtually every stripe understand the motivations behind initiatives that at the same time are seen as disruptive or even dangerous.
What is sometimes forgotten in the occasionally tense to and fro between Washington and Taipei is that unlike the previous era of US-Taiwanese diplomacy, when national authorities could act with much less concern about public scrutiny or opposition, the current leaders must be much more responsive to public sentiment and criticism.
While it is true that, on occasion, Taiwanese leaders have taken steps that went against the advice given by Washington, these initiatives were usually undertaken with a specific domestic group of supporters in mind. In a sense, this is the essence of democracy.
The challenge for this and the next generation of US and Taiwanese leaders will be to better appreciate the pressures and interests of the other. For the US president, it will mean a simultaneous desire to maintain a stable and durable understanding with China while at the same time seeking to preserve Taiwan's security and democracy.
For the Taiwanese president, it will mean negotiating a complex path between domestic expectations for greater national identity and international standing, while taking account of the obvious desires of both Beijing and Washington to avoid actions that could trigger a crisis.
Clearly, Washington and Taipei will have their hands full, but in the complex trilateral dialogue and diplomacy between Washington, Taipei and Beijing, it is clear that the common experience of democracy has created inevitable and undeniable connections between Taiwan and the US that cannot and should not be ignored. Indeed, it is these values, along with other strategic interests, that keep the US so closely engaged in the Western Pacific.
So, as presidential campaigning continues in the US and Taiwan, it is important to keep these common political experiences in mind while both sides negotiate a complex future together.
Kurt Campbell is the chief executive officer and cofounder of the Center for a New American Security.
Last week, newspapers in New Hampshire and Taiwan -- thousands of kilometers apart and meant for vastly different audiences with completely different cultures and political traditions -- carried eerily familiar pictures. In one, a despondent Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) supporter was seen somewhat in shock after the results of the legislative elections were announced, which saw a rout of the DPP at the hands of rival Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidates. The picture was accompanied by a story of what this would mean for the presidential election in March.
At the same time, a Nashua, New Hampshire, newspaper carried a very similar picture of a deflated supporter of Representative Barack Obama trudging dejectedly through the thick snow after Hillary Clinton's surprise upset in the Democratic primary.
While there is much that separates the US and Taiwan -- very different histories, national aspirations and worldviews -- there are still important things that unite them. The US and Taiwan each possesses among the most active and participatory democracies in the world and the intensity of the two presidential campaigns are cases in point.
There has been extensive discussion of late of a worrisome drift in the US-Taiwan relationship and there are indeed signs of discord and clear areas for worry.
President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) seemingly insatiable push for a referendum on joining the UN has drawn particular ire from the Bush administration. So too have persistent disagreements about defense spending and participation in international institutions created occasional tensions between Washington and Taipei.
These instances of disagreement and discord take place amid the background of China's dramatic rise to great power status. It is undeniable that China now plays a much larger role in Washington's calculation on virtually every matter of global importance, from North Korean nuclear weapons to currency woes to energy anxieties to unrest in Pakistan.
The US now needs a constructive partnership with China as never before, which has resulted in Taiwan feeling increasingly squeezed by the growing weight of China in all matters of international diplomacy and commerce.
Nevertheless, what is often forgotten behind the banal bromides that celebrate the vibrancy of Taiwanese democracy is that the US and Taiwan share a common experience of democracy, including all its many disappointments, difficulties and dilemmas that cannot be easily ignored.
Indeed, national leaders who are regularly subjected to the difficult discipline of polling stations and voting booths understand each other at some very basic, core level.
While US officials often claim to be mystified by a Taiwanese move or maneuver on an issue related to identity or national character, the truth is that deep down, Americans of virtually every stripe understand the motivations behind initiatives that at the same time are seen as disruptive or even dangerous.
What is sometimes forgotten in the occasionally tense to and fro between Washington and Taipei is that unlike the previous era of US-Taiwanese diplomacy, when national authorities could act with much less concern about public scrutiny or opposition, the current leaders must be much more responsive to public sentiment and criticism.
While it is true that, on occasion, Taiwanese leaders have taken steps that went against the advice given by Washington, these initiatives were usually undertaken with a specific domestic group of supporters in mind. In a sense, this is the essence of democracy.
The challenge for this and the next generation of US and Taiwanese leaders will be to better appreciate the pressures and interests of the other. For the US president, it will mean a simultaneous desire to maintain a stable and durable understanding with China while at the same time seeking to preserve Taiwan's security and democracy.
For the Taiwanese president, it will mean negotiating a complex path between domestic expectations for greater national identity and international standing, while taking account of the obvious desires of both Beijing and Washington to avoid actions that could trigger a crisis.
Clearly, Washington and Taipei will have their hands full, but in the complex trilateral dialogue and diplomacy between Washington, Taipei and Beijing, it is clear that the common experience of democracy has created inevitable and undeniable connections between Taiwan and the US that cannot and should not be ignored. Indeed, it is these values, along with other strategic interests, that keep the US so closely engaged in the Western Pacific.
So, as presidential campaigning continues in the US and Taiwan, it is important to keep these common political experiences in mind while both sides negotiate a complex future together.
Kurt Campbell is the chief executive officer and cofounder of the Center for a New American Security.
2008年1月17日 星期四
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...
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.
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.
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.
2008年1月15日 星期二
Whither the DPP?
Even by the day it appears that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is getting deeper into trouble in its campaign to retain the presidency. This is not helped by do-nothing senior members of the party such as Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) who, true to form, has launched attacks against members of the government instead of rallying around the party flag to salvage something for the March poll.
Lu and a number of other embarrassing party members command an inordinate degree of respect despite their political stupidity and/or laziness.
In this regard the party is all too similar to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which also seems unable to unload "old guard" freeloaders in its party framework and the legislature.
There was always going to have be a reckoning for the DPP's terrible performance in the legislative elections -- "performance" here referring to the manner in which the campaign was conducted, regardless of any structural disadvantages the party was facing.
The problem is that the DPP lacks a coherent strategy and merit-based hierarchy to do this.
Indeed, the party does not have the remotest idea how to begin to reinvigorate itself for the next legislative poll in 2012, let alone for a presidential election in two months.
Former premier Yu Shyi-kun was DPP chairman for most of President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) second term, a time when the party was in the most desperate need of launching a campaign to engage new voters. But the time he had was utterly wasted. By the time Chen took over, it was clear that the party never appreciated the need to look beyond the green-blue divide and appeal to common interests at the local level.
Instead, it seems to have concentrated on spoils for established figures, such as Legislator Chai Trong-rong (蔡同榮), the former boss of Formosa TV, whose flight from his Chiayi City electorate in the face of a split vote and election as a legislator-at-large typify the mess that the DPP now finds itself in.
Some will argue that the KMT's domination of resources makes any DPP incursion into local politics a futile affair. This is only true if the DPP thinks that local sentiment is not worth fighting for.
If KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is elected in March, there will be ample opportunity to critique the policies and competence of a KMT government.
DPP supporters will be disappointed by the public's willingness to reward the boycott of the legislature with an increased majority.
They will wonder why it is that the public could support a party that would threaten to cut off Taiwan Post's budget because it refused to print a stamp designed by a KMT legislator, that would cripple arms spending in the face of a deadly threat from China, and that would shut down the arm of the government that monitors the performance of public servants simply because it could.
The answer is in the party's name: Taiwan is a "democratic" state, and people do not always vote for what candidates consider virtuous.
Party strategists must realize that it cannot mobilize moderate supporters using ideological battles and reliance on White Terror nostalgia at election time -- a fault that was most apparent in its advertising campaign.
In the end the message is clear: The KMT has what it takes to win legislative elections and the DPP does not -- and it may not for many elections to come, assuming, of course, that under a KMT government Taiwan can survive as a sovereign state.
Taipei Times Editorial, January 16, 2008.
Lu and a number of other embarrassing party members command an inordinate degree of respect despite their political stupidity and/or laziness.
In this regard the party is all too similar to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which also seems unable to unload "old guard" freeloaders in its party framework and the legislature.
There was always going to have be a reckoning for the DPP's terrible performance in the legislative elections -- "performance" here referring to the manner in which the campaign was conducted, regardless of any structural disadvantages the party was facing.
The problem is that the DPP lacks a coherent strategy and merit-based hierarchy to do this.
Indeed, the party does not have the remotest idea how to begin to reinvigorate itself for the next legislative poll in 2012, let alone for a presidential election in two months.
Former premier Yu Shyi-kun was DPP chairman for most of President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) second term, a time when the party was in the most desperate need of launching a campaign to engage new voters. But the time he had was utterly wasted. By the time Chen took over, it was clear that the party never appreciated the need to look beyond the green-blue divide and appeal to common interests at the local level.
Instead, it seems to have concentrated on spoils for established figures, such as Legislator Chai Trong-rong (蔡同榮), the former boss of Formosa TV, whose flight from his Chiayi City electorate in the face of a split vote and election as a legislator-at-large typify the mess that the DPP now finds itself in.
Some will argue that the KMT's domination of resources makes any DPP incursion into local politics a futile affair. This is only true if the DPP thinks that local sentiment is not worth fighting for.
If KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is elected in March, there will be ample opportunity to critique the policies and competence of a KMT government.
DPP supporters will be disappointed by the public's willingness to reward the boycott of the legislature with an increased majority.
They will wonder why it is that the public could support a party that would threaten to cut off Taiwan Post's budget because it refused to print a stamp designed by a KMT legislator, that would cripple arms spending in the face of a deadly threat from China, and that would shut down the arm of the government that monitors the performance of public servants simply because it could.
The answer is in the party's name: Taiwan is a "democratic" state, and people do not always vote for what candidates consider virtuous.
Party strategists must realize that it cannot mobilize moderate supporters using ideological battles and reliance on White Terror nostalgia at election time -- a fault that was most apparent in its advertising campaign.
In the end the message is clear: The KMT has what it takes to win legislative elections and the DPP does not -- and it may not for many elections to come, assuming, of course, that under a KMT government Taiwan can survive as a sovereign state.
Taipei Times Editorial, January 16, 2008.
2008年1月13日 星期日
Voting for Taiwan's Demise
By Lee Long-hwa
When I was told I should prepare for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) winning the presidential election in March, I acknowledged that it was a possibility. I pointed out that once the KMT takes hold of Taiwan, it would use the nation as a lever, trading sovereignty for some opportunity to get into China.
After all, for the past 50 years, Taiwan has been nothing more to the KMT than a piggy bank and parking space, as the party's dream has always been to return to China.
For the other half of Taiwan, there is no going "back." There is only here. The problem is "here" never seems to be enough. Many Taiwanese long to be part of something bigger, something powerful. This accounts in some way for the strange fascination and appreciation that some have for developments at the hands of the Japanese colonialists -- if they could overlook the death, destruction and cultural genocide the Japanese wrought.
By the same token, some Taiwanese appreciate the KMT dictatorship for the contributions the party had made to the economy and industrial development. However, they do not welcome the prejudice, the racism and the derogatory attitude toward people considered "too Taiwanese" that persists to this day.
So what are we faced with? Two months from the election, and we still don't know what KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) will do, not "for" but "to" Taiwan. Will he surrender to China? Possibly. Will he fight China? Never. Will he dissect Taiwan, allowing it to be raped slowly by China, in exchange for the KMT scions returning to China as kings and kingmakers, as wealthy owners and directors, setting up a new network of loyal KMT legions?
All of this will be done at the expense of Taiwan. After all, Taiwan is merely a bargaining chip, something to be thrown in as part of some deal -- a deal that may already have been made. For the KMT, Taiwan is not something of value, not a place to stay in, but only a place worth leaving. And with Ma comes the opportunity to finally find a place in the sun in China once again.
Yes, cross-strait tensions will lessen, but only because a Ma administration will have moved toward surrendering Taiwan's sovereignty.
Perhaps the KMT will agree to outlaw the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
Perhaps the KMT will use its majority to adopt China's "Anti-Secession" Law in Taiwan and use it to suppress any talk of independence.
Perhaps once again talk of independence will become a crime and DPP members may become targets of arrest.
Taiwan will once again become a one-party town. And it will no longer be Taiwan. It will become Chinese Taipei, an island built around a city.
With the lowering of all barriers to investment in China, Taiwan will lose all of its industry to China and become the Honolulu of China, a mere tourist island, where international fame comes from its betelnut beauties.
For many people, that may be the only job left, after all the high-tech jobs have fled to China.
I don't know if all of these will happen or not. But if Taiwanese were to elect the KMT, giving it a legislative majority and the presidency, they will be voting for their own demise.
When I was told I should prepare for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) winning the presidential election in March, I acknowledged that it was a possibility. I pointed out that once the KMT takes hold of Taiwan, it would use the nation as a lever, trading sovereignty for some opportunity to get into China.
After all, for the past 50 years, Taiwan has been nothing more to the KMT than a piggy bank and parking space, as the party's dream has always been to return to China.
For the other half of Taiwan, there is no going "back." There is only here. The problem is "here" never seems to be enough. Many Taiwanese long to be part of something bigger, something powerful. This accounts in some way for the strange fascination and appreciation that some have for developments at the hands of the Japanese colonialists -- if they could overlook the death, destruction and cultural genocide the Japanese wrought.
By the same token, some Taiwanese appreciate the KMT dictatorship for the contributions the party had made to the economy and industrial development. However, they do not welcome the prejudice, the racism and the derogatory attitude toward people considered "too Taiwanese" that persists to this day.
So what are we faced with? Two months from the election, and we still don't know what KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) will do, not "for" but "to" Taiwan. Will he surrender to China? Possibly. Will he fight China? Never. Will he dissect Taiwan, allowing it to be raped slowly by China, in exchange for the KMT scions returning to China as kings and kingmakers, as wealthy owners and directors, setting up a new network of loyal KMT legions?
All of this will be done at the expense of Taiwan. After all, Taiwan is merely a bargaining chip, something to be thrown in as part of some deal -- a deal that may already have been made. For the KMT, Taiwan is not something of value, not a place to stay in, but only a place worth leaving. And with Ma comes the opportunity to finally find a place in the sun in China once again.
Yes, cross-strait tensions will lessen, but only because a Ma administration will have moved toward surrendering Taiwan's sovereignty.
Perhaps the KMT will agree to outlaw the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
Perhaps the KMT will use its majority to adopt China's "Anti-Secession" Law in Taiwan and use it to suppress any talk of independence.
Perhaps once again talk of independence will become a crime and DPP members may become targets of arrest.
Taiwan will once again become a one-party town. And it will no longer be Taiwan. It will become Chinese Taipei, an island built around a city.
With the lowering of all barriers to investment in China, Taiwan will lose all of its industry to China and become the Honolulu of China, a mere tourist island, where international fame comes from its betelnut beauties.
For many people, that may be the only job left, after all the high-tech jobs have fled to China.
I don't know if all of these will happen or not. But if Taiwanese were to elect the KMT, giving it a legislative majority and the presidency, they will be voting for their own demise.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
