Editor's note: the following text is a translation of a speech made by former president Lee Teng-hui (
As everyone is aware, Taiwan's democracy and freedom were not easily won. Nevertheless, it is quite apparent that reactionary foreign political forces do not want to see the Taiwanese have control over their own country.
Ever since the transition of political power from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in 2000, opposition parties have consistently boycotted any laws proposed by the government, regardless of their merit. This sabotage has left the government stranded and has made it almost impossible for this government to achieve anything.
That having been said, even though it is true that this situation has arisen as a result of the opposition's majority in the legislature, we cannot put the blame entirely on their shoulders.
The electorate put their trust in the DPP to take the reins of the country, giving them access to, and control of, all the resources of government. After they won the election, the DPP should have done all they could to work together with the parties they had previously campaigned against, calling on all Taiwanese to give their utmost for the good of the country. Regarding this matter, the DPP has clearly not done very well.
It is not uncommon for the governing party in democratic countries to have a minority in the legislative body. One example of this would be Japan, where the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has been in government for a long time despite the fact that it is not the largest party in the Diet. The fact that the LDP doesn't have a majority of seats, however, has not left Japanese politics in the same situation as in Taiwan.
Faced with the same predicament Japan has prevailed where Taiwan has failed. For this reason we believe that the DPP could have done more. Since they came to power they have been busy trying to secure their own factional interests rather than looking for a way to solve the legislative impasse. It is no wonder that the DPP was dealt an unprecedented blow in the recent three-in-one local elections. This defeat did not come from nowhere, and the Taiwanese people had good reason to deal such a blow to the party.
Since the DPP came to power, they have been saying one thing and doing another, and they have been consistent only in their inconsistency. Over time, the electorate has gradually lost confidence in the DPP.
During last year's legislative elections the DPP campaigned on the issues of the rectification of the national title and the creation of a new constitution. After the election, however, they unexpectedly changed their tune saying that they could not achieve the impossible.
It is clear from this response that they have not really put enough thought into how to make localization a reality, and have sought instead to placate the people with short-sighted policies.
This kind of thinking does not meet the exigencies of the situation. What everyone wants is realistic political policies designed with Taiwan in mind that will pave the way for the kind of future that we want to have.
There are a number of "Taiwan First" policies brought up during election campaigns that the DPP have consistently failed to follow up on. For quite some time now, the party has failed to understand that the people want to see how these localization policies can actually change their lives, tending instead to go round and round in circles spouting abstract slogans.
For the DPP, the road to localization is full of blind spots: from the declaration of the "five noes," to flinching in the face of rectifying the name of Taiwan and writing a new constitution, from the 10-point consensus reached with People First Party Chairman James Soong (
Given this situation, how could the electorate feel at ease, how could they not feel angry, how could they not teach the DPP a lesson?
Even though the DPP suffered a heavy defeat in the Dec. 3 elections, we cannot jump to conclusions -- that it will not be able to make a comeback in the next elections. Whether or not it can stage a comeback depends on whether its leadership can take a good hard look at themselves. Faced with such a crucial period, we genuinely hope that the governing DPP can place three guidelines on top of its administrative agenda in order to win back popular support.
First, the DPP has to uphold Taiwanese awareness and eradicate any pro-China ideology that threatens the security of Taiwan.
Second, the party has to take the initiative and strengthen Taiwan's national defense capabilities and resolutely oppose China's military aggression.
Third, it has to protect the economic benefits that Taiwan enjoys and should not seek to "actively open" up to China. Thus, the DPP should consider whether or not it will be appropriate to hold the second Economic Development Advisory Conference next month as planned.
The aforementioned three guidelines clearly suggest that Taiwan is Taiwan, China is China, and that Taiwan has never belonged to China. Nor has China ever exercised jurisdiction over Taiwan. In other words, a distinction between these two nations has to be very clearly drawn.
We hope that the general public can join us in supervising the performance of the DPP using these three guidelines and offer a glimmer of hope to the nation.
I also hold similar views regarding the arms procurement budget that has been blocked 39 times (now 41) in the procedure committee of the legislature. The arms procurement budget includes the cost of submarines, which are indispensable to our national defense. When I served as president, I did all I could to purchase submarines from advanced nations including the US, but to no avail.
Ever since US President George W. Bush came to power, US strategy shifted and he agreed to sell eight submarines to Taiwan. However, the governing DPP did not seek to gain the support of the legislature and rather only intended to bring up the subject prior to elections. That is, the DPP only regards the issue of national defense as one of its election gimmicks and has only provoked resentment among the public and given the opposition more ammunition with which to criticize the government.
That is why the issue of the arms procurement budget has been constantly boycotted by the opposition parties, for it has never been broached when it was supposed to be. Failing to make good use of previous opportunities, it is hardly surprising that the DPP has performed so badly in these most recent elections.
Although the DPP has disappointed the Taiwanese in the way it has dealt with the arms procurement budget, the Taiwanese cannot simply sit back and watch without attempting to do anything. Therefore, the Northern Taiwan Society recently launched a fund-raising activity to urge each national to donate NT$100 to support the arms bill and show our determination to defend our homeland.
This is not an ordinary fund-raising activity, but a declaration of war against reactionary forces and is directed at calling on people to defend our democratic achievements. I hope that we can all make a concerted effort to promote such an activity. I also want to once again call on all Taiwanese to come forward to demonstrate our power and jointly defend our homeland.
Lee Teng-hui is a former president of the Republic of China.
Translated by Paul Cooper and Daniel Cheng
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