In the elections for the sixth Legislative Yuan last Saturday, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which enjoys an administrative advantage, and the Taiwan Solidarity Union, led by former president Lee Teng-hui (
Their responsible approach is laudable. After all, the core of democracy is "political accountability," which is exactly the fundamental principle Taiwan's politicians must learn.
Party leaders and other decision-makers must take responsibility for their parties' gains and losses in major elections. This allows an objective standard to differentiate between right and wrong within each party, and is a clear indicator of politicians' morals. Under such circumstances, those who are honest and responsible can be able to distinguish themselves from those who are thirsty for power while passing the buck in full view of the electorate.
The most prominent case is President Chen Shui-bian's (
Moreover, it is a good opportunity for the DPP, which has always claimed to love Taiwan, to make a change from the political system introduced by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), in which the party had primacy in politics. It is time for the DPP to break with the political structures of the party-state and correct the egregious error of having a president who is also party chairman. It should ensure that it is clearly stated that the presidency and party chairmanship cannot be held concurrently, so that the policies of the party, which are hidden from the voting public, are clearly separated from those of the government administration. Only in this way can the president be a "president for all the people," rather than just being a party leader.
Political parties in many advanced democratic nations serve only as election machinery, their main function being to guide public opinion during election campaigns. The bad examples set by the KMT, which has a massive party organization which allowed it to concurrently hold the presidency and the party chairmanship, should be rejected by the DPP. Despite the KMT's massive party organization, it still lost its hold on government power, and even though the DPP has a fair-sized party machinery, it still managed to be defeated in the legislative elections. Clearly a party organization is not central to winning or retaining power.
So, even as the DPP considers internal reform, it should rationalize the definition of the party's status to something more in keeping with the needs of a modern democratic country. It is important to build a political party that conforms to the spirit of demo-cracy, and the emphasis of party activity should be focused on work in the constituencies. The DPP must learn the lesson of its defeat in the legislative elections and plant the idea of responsible government deeply in the ground of Taiwan's political culture.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic