In the early years of the last century, a famous and well-liked humorist in the US, Will Rogers, would often start his talks on politics with the tongue-in-cheek quip "I only know what the newspapers say." This always brought a laugh. In those days, US newspapers were much like Taiwan's media is today -- known for making very interesting but unsupported allegations, with a political purpose in mind. There is one difference now in Taiwan -- nobody seems to be laughing.
Rightly or wrongly, the results often damage people's reputations, put a politician out of work or shift a fundamental policy in another direction -- none of which are laughing matters. In Taiwan, for example, there are important national issues at stake, while in the US, immigration is one that could bring a whole variety of changes to millions of citizens (and non-citizens).
But what seems to be forgotten in Taiwan is that the disagreements taking place now are driven by the media, but ultimately must be decided by the people -- as is the case in any free and open democracy. The media tends to push the sensational, while politicians emphasize what they want and skip over what they don't. The question then is how well the issues are understood by the people.
The pan-blue camp is now focusing its efforts on calling for President Chen Shui-bian (
This is a continuation of the pan-blue camp's five-year effort to undermine the government, including preventing the Control Yuan from addressing the many "black gold" issues waiting in the wings, freezing items necessary for the nation's defense and forging closer relations, as a political party, with China -- without the government's involvement.
The pan-blue camp's effort carries with it a very capable media, cultivated by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the many years of its authoritarian rule with some of the resources it obtained illicitly during that time.
In a democratic country, it is understandable for a political party to exert great effort to return to power, and to a certain extent almost anything goes. Democratic countries, however, generally establish laws and rules, or depend on tradition, to lessen fundamental harm to the country. That does not seem to be the case in Taiwan.
At the same time the DPP, from the standpoint of public acceptance, is clearly on the defensive. The media, given the stories of alleged corruption, inevitably will continue to expand coverage of events that are of great interest to readers. Such attention -- and harm to the DPP -- will probably continue, no matter what the results. In addition, the continuous stories of competition between DPP leaders seeking the candidacy in the next presidential election are also not only of great interest to the media and the people, but also support the efforts of its rival, the KMT.
In the past six years, despite some mistakes, much has been achieved in Taiwan, especially toward strengthening democracy. Much of this includes work by non-government organizations, which has often been encouraged by the government.
One important reason for this is the government's inability to pass needed legislation. The opposition's blockade of almost all matters that need such laws has been successful, and the DPP has found no way to get around it.
The DPP continued to attract more voter support until late 2004. The opposition, however, continued to hold sway over much of Taiwan's media. With the pan-blue camp leaders' trips to China, the DPP's continued inability to break the opposition's legislative blockade and the allegations of corruption in the government, the opposition's media has flourished and continues to now. With the lone exception of the "Hand in Hand" demonstration, the executive branch has been unable to gather sufficient voter strength to overcome the opposition.
Both parties differ on how best to regain power (the pan-blue camp), or retain it (the pan-greens). That has not stopped the growing tension between them. The potential for consolidation that was mulled in the past seems dead. The pan-blue camp wants to destroy Chen and the DPP; the pan-greens want to obliterate the KMT by blocking its money. The likelihood of both succeeding is not high.
The debates among the DPP and the KMT can be viewed as political party competition, masked in ideology or efforts to gain more power. But voters, especially younger ones, they are more likely to be see such maneuvers as power grabs, not the growth of democracy -- which highlights a necessity for young people to get more involved in governance.
Blocking needed legislation or challenging the integrity of elected officials is legitimate in a democracy. Political parties and lawmakers do and should bargain hard for the good of their party and constituents. But there is a limit, and law makers to such negotiations and a time for lawmakers to develop a consensus through concessions that will hurt the least for both party and legislator, but which also keep the good of the country in mind. In the past six years such patriotism has been rare. Or is it that we only know what is said or written in the media?
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
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