TT: The first ever referendum in Taiwan failed to meet the legal threshold of a 50 percent of turnout, rendering it invalid. Was this a failure of Taiwan's attempt to take a democratic step forward?
Edward Friedman: The referendum, which obviously by the end had no real content, was mainly a way for President Chen [Shui-bian] to invigorate his base. And I think he probably succeeded politically in doing what he wanted. So from the political point of view it was a success and part of a very successful campaign. After all a party which only had 39 percent of the vote ended up with over 50 percent of the vote. So it was an amazing gain in a very short space of time. The referendum was part of what energized the bases of the votes for Chen.
What one would also hope is that the defeat of the referendum will allow the government of Taiwan to back away from any kind of actions which Beijing would consider provocative.
The president will say that this referendum was defeated and we will really have to take serious conciliatory steps toward Beijing. And hopefully make some initiatives, which this time, please God, Beijing might even respond to.
So rather than seeing the referendum being a failure this time, politically it was a great help and could be used for good purposes that would serve the interests of people in Taiwan in the future. So I don't want to think of it as just a failure.
Daniel C. Lynch: First of all, those questions weren't the original questions that President Chen wanted to ask, so it's hard to know whether the questions were asked within Taiwan or asked what the voters might have decided. So first thing is the officiality of the questions.
Secondly, I agree with professor Friedman that this should cause President Chen to tread cautiously in thinking about using a referendum to pass a new constitution. It's not clear exactly what Taiwan's voters will think of that. Writing a new constitution is obviously a very complicated process and in this context of dangerous cross-strait relations, it is probably dangerous.
TT: What about the election results and the saga of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan not wanting to accept the election result?
Friedman: I think that for the consolidation of Taiwan's democracy, it is important that no matter how painful it is, no matter how close the election was, that the defeated candidates accept the procedure. We could all understand the emotions when you lose a fight by so little but a responsible leader caring about the future of Taiwan, I don't think should have spoken the way that he spoke. It's perfectly OK to say, "Lets make sure that the numbers are correct and it was a very close election." But to make any suggestion without any evidence at all, that the other side engaged in an attempted assassination of the president of the country to win the election -- that is shocking. And I can tell you that the people who come from around the world and from the US, that I have spoken to are all shocked, that a serious party leader in a democracy would talk that way and incite them, was very irresponsible.
Lynch: There was report this morning in the China Times that the US was delaying sending a congratulatory message to President Chen. It is important that the AIT and the White House actually not go along with this, that they will recognize the election results.
TT: You said that observers from around the world are shocked to see Lien Chan's behavior. How will Lien Chan's action affect Taiwan's image in the international arena?
Friedman: A leader of a party who is running for a head of a state is not allowed to have emotions and passions, which are all understandable, shape his public statement in that kind of situation. It is his job to inform his followers as to what are the proper democratic things to do. Taiwan had a transparent democratic election. The numbers are real. Everybody knows that the counting was absolute open and public and verified. And as much as we can understand why they would feel disappointed, the important thing for the leaders to say, is that, the results are the results we abide by. In a democracy it is the procedures which are decisive. And that's what he should say to his people.
I think this morning some people at the Presidential Office are beginning to change their rhetoric and beginning to say that we should allow legal procedures to determine the outcome.
It would have been very nice if he [Lien] had said something like that in the beginning also.
Lynch: In terms of the image of Taiwan, the predominant image everyone would have right now is that of courageous President Chen and Vice President [Annette] Lu being shot but proceeding with the election, standing up there with apparent discomfort but proceeding with the election.
I don't think you have to worry about the image of Taiwan at all.
I agree with Professor Friedman that both Lien and Soong will eventually back down once the voters cool down and let the legal procedures play out.
TT: With the election result being so close, Taiwan looks like is a very divided nation right now. How do you envision the future of Taiwan?
Friedman: The United States is very divided. Taiwan is very divided in a very different way. America is divided on the bases of deeply entrenched forces. I think Taiwan is amidst a rapid change and it just happens that at this moment the forces are evenly divided. There is every reason to think that continuing rapid change is going to go on politically in Taiwan. So I don't think that one should assume that the next time there is an election in Taiwan, even in December, they will be divided in the same exact way.
Lynch: I think obviously President Chen will have to take this division into account. And I think he will. I think the first time he was elected in 2000, he was very accommodating of a different social force, and used different approaches to deal with China and so on.
Friedman: The election has had an impact on both camps too. They are not the same two camps. I think the result of the election is that the DPP is much more open now to figuring out how they will make globalization with China work, rather than opposing it. In Taiwan, to go on with economic growth they really have to go that way.
I think for the blue camp, they much more understand that there has been a change of Taiwan's identity. And that if they are not in tune with that Taiwan identity -- you could see them changing a lot just in the last couple of months -- they can't help to be elected. So the people are changing and the society is changing, so the politicians are changing and the political parties are changing. Taiwan's political system is in a great flux, which is very ordinary in the early years of a new democracy.
Lynch: We don't know how China will react either. Will China act responsibly? Will China recognize that it was close but now that Chen is re-elected, they will have to talk with President Chen? Then I think you will see the cross-strait economic integration proceeding. I think Taiwan will reach to the future confidently and peacefully. But we really don't know how China will respond.
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
Today is Feb. 28, a day that Taiwan associates with two tragic historical memories. The 228 Incident, which started on Feb. 28, 1947, began from protests sparked by a cigarette seizure that took place the day before in front of the Tianma Tea House in Taipei’s Datong District (大同). It turned into a mass movement that spread across Taiwan. Local gentry asked then-governor general Chen Yi (陳儀) to intervene, but he received contradictory orders. In early March, after Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) dispatched troops to Keelung, a nationwide massacre took place and lasted until May 16, during which many important intellectuals
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS