Although there were few surprises in President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) New Year message this year, it made it difficult for Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to pick a fight. In the end, Ma resorted to playing the economy card, but this fell flat, as it was totally irrelevant. Chen himself had said all along that this New Year's address was just as important as his speech upon winning the election, and much can be read into this.
The speech was basically a reiteration of the principle of the sovereignty of Taiwan and a restatement of the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) core values. By putting Taiwan back in the spotlight, the speech was a blow to the pan-blue camp and an antidote to the pan-green camp's blues. Chen opened the speech by alluding to the ideas of Taiwan's image, Taiwan's hopes, Taiwan's spirit and Taiwan consciousness. Having focused on the theme of national identity, he pointed out that the main driving force behind Taiwan's historical development was the 23 million people who live here. This was clearly an appeal by the president to the people of Taiwan, looking to them for backing as he tried to distinguish Taiwan from the party-state and from China.
Chen continued, saying that the KMT government of the past 60 years had been an "immigrant regime," a point that was not lost on Ma, who was sitting right there in the room. Chen also alluded to the long period of martial law that the KMT regime oversaw, and rather impertinently used the term "foreign power," from which the new KMT chairman has sought to disassociate his party. Chen went on with his theme, highlighting the significance to Taiwan's democracy of the handover of political power from the KMT to the DPP, saying that this placed sovereignty in the hands of the people and contrasting the idea of power in the hands of the people with power in the hands of an immigrant regime. This is not a path that Taiwan should tread again.
Without naming names, Chen implied that Ma was promoting the return of the "immigrant regime" under the guise of "uniting Taiwan" and "establishing a normal democratic society." The distinction between power in the hands of the people and a foreign regime is the difference between who is in control and whose word counts. Ma has said to the foreign press that he sees unification with China as the KMT's ultimate goal, and he has always viewed pro-independence activity as an unpardonable offence. In the past, Ma has been anti-communist, but now we see him in a new incarnation, "anti-communist but not anti-China." This means that he adheres to the policy of uniting with the communists against the pro-independence factions in Taiwan, which is tantamount to removing freedom of choice from the Taiwanese people. Not only does this go against the idea of putting power in the hands of the people, it shows quite clearly that Ma hasn't changed much since the days of martial law.
What this all means is that the difference between the DPP and the KMT, or between Chen and Ma, is the distinction between democracy and its absence.
With this as his foundation, the president then continued to make distinctions based on the ideas of sovereignty, democracy, peace and equality, emphasizing the differences between the pan-green and pan-blue camps. On one side there is Chen and the support of the majority of Taiwanese, and on the other is a complete lack of democracy with the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party. Chen's point in all this is that Taiwan's problems are not the result of the struggle between the pan-greens and the pan-blues, but the struggle between the greens and the reds. And isn't the failure of the passage of the arms procurement budget a direct result of this?
The president is committed to "always standing on the side of justice," and this is what the Taiwanese people expect of him. In this New Year's speech Chen expressed the government's resolve and its commitment to following through on it. That is where the real significance of the speech lies.
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS