The opposition pan-blue camp has called for an electoral recount and an investigation of the March 19 shooting incident, demands to which President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) administration and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) have responded with the utmost sincerity and substantive action. But it appears that no amount of goodwill and effort will appease the bitter feelings of the losers, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜).
Given that Lien and Soong were upholders of this country's authoritarian past, it is not surprising that they are unwilling to accept the results of a fairly contested election. Chen's re-election dashed their hopes of returning to power and proved that the democratic reforms promoted by the DPP are here to stay.
Nevertheless, since we of the pan-green camp recognize that this election was indeed an extremely tight race, we have fully respected their right to a legal recount and have further agreed to statutory revisions for an administrative recount.
A comprehensive and transparent investigation of the shooting is under way, and the DPP has already met the opposition's de-mand that foreign forensic experts participate in this investigation. That such an act of violence occurred on the election's eve was a terrible shock and a day of sadness for the nation, for we had prided ourselves on the peaceful nature of Taiwan's democratic tran-sition. More than anyone else, the president is eager to find out the truth behind the attempted assassination.
Yet because Lien refuses to accept his defeat, what could have been a further step in Taiwan's democratic consolidation has turned out to be its biggest test.
A strong democracy requires that the general population possess a basic confidence in government institutions' legitimacy and soundness. Even though his claims completely lack evidence, Lien appears determined to undermine both the election's legitimacy and trust in the government. During one of modern history's longest periods of martial law it was Lien's KMT that fostered a sense of distrust in government among the Taiwanese people. Ironically, with the help of melodrama, hearsay and mass media, Lien is now able to capitalize on these lingering sentiments.
The KMT is known for its history of human rights violations and authoritarian rule, whereas the DPP has been at the forefront of Taiwan's democratic movement. When we were Taiwan's only opposition party, we fought in numerous unfair elections rigged by the KMT. To accuse us of election fraud is a grave insult to those who have dedicated their lives to and even sacrificed their lives for democracy.
Democracy also requires mature political leaders and parties. As the vote was tallied on the evening of March 20, Lien chose to incite crowds with a fiery, bitter speech. Meanwhile, the president expressed his highest respect for Lien, and urged supporters to cast aside political differences and embrace the pan-blue camp. While the blue camp organized mass protests and stormed government buildings, the DPP urged supporters to exercise restraint and strictly forbade local party branches from organizing any confrontational activities. On the weekend of April 10, as the pan-blue camp continued with demonstrations that ended in violence, DPP delegates met to reform our party mechanisms for nominating candidates.
It is obvious which side is committed to Taiwan's stability and ongoing democratization, and which side is merely seeking political gain at the expense of social order.
Democracy -- particularly in Taiwan's case -- requires support from the international community. China has regarded any act of democratic consolidation, from our first parliamentary election to the presidential election and recent referenda, as a move toward independence deserving political and even military suppression. Such threats to our very survival and the discrediting of democracy are not only unjust but also harmful to Asia-Pacific stability.
If one hopes for China's rapid political liberalization, then Taiwan's democracy must be allowed to flourish. Taiwan's experience has proven that democracy can be compatible with so-called Asian values, and our close cultural and economic ties with China can play a strategic liberalizing influence. It is unfortunate that the post-election controversy generated by the blue camp has been manipulated by China in an attempt to belittle Hong Kong's democratic move-ment. We must not allow the blue camp's actions to continue to harm Taiwan's international image.
It is with sadness that we have witnessed the blue camp's demon-strations turn violent. We are appalled that Lien still refuses to take responsibility for events spinning out of control, and still blames Chen and the DPP.
Recent events represent a surge of reactionary forces against the ongoing consolidation of democracy. Despite these challenges, we have faith in this country's people and democratic institutions. Having won over half of the votes, the president is in a position of strength. Polls also indicate that the public disapproves of the blue camp's actions.
As we weather this storm, we are confident that Taiwan's democracy will emerge stronger than ever before.
Hsiao Bi-khim is a legislatior and director of international affairs for the Democratic Progressive Party.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS