In recent weeks, the conflicts between President Chen Shui-bian (
To be fair, their political stances are not that different -- both parties promote democracy, freedom, Taiwan's independence and sovereignty, and the normalization of the country's national status. But their economic views are diametrically opposed. In 2001, Chen replaced Lee's "no haste, be patient" policy with the "active opening, effective management" policy.
It was the first step toward their breakup, and is the biggest reason they have gone separate ways because the two policies represent different attitudes toward China and the Taiwanese.
Lee is always concerned about national security and economic safety. He is troubled by Beijing's strategy of "using business to promote unification," believing that excessive Taiwanese investment in, and cooperation with, China may broaden the gap between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. This will damage Taiwan's economy and the Taiwanese people's income, and will have a negative impact on Taiwan's economic development.
Politically, China's ultimate goal is the annexation of Taiwan, and it seeks to prevent Taiwan from becoming a normal nation. Beijing's political pressure on Taiwanese businesspeople operating in China will also damage the democratic localization forces in Taiwan, turning it into the next Hong Kong -- something that Taiwanese do not want to see. Since Lee is the TSU's spiritual leader, naturally, the party has inherited his China policies.
When the DPP was established in 1986, it was a union of anti-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and anti-dictatorship forces. Their political stance was clear: They sought democracy and freedom, as well as independence and sovereignty for Taiwan.
As the only opposition party at the time of its founding, the DPP quickly won public support. Apart from focusing attention on environmental protection and disadvantaged groups, its economic policies, and particularly its cross-strait business policies, were unclear and divided. Surprisingly, the party's confused understanding of economic policy meant that Hsu Hsin-liang (許信良) was elected party chairman. Hsu espoused "going west boldly," and an immediate opening of direct cross-strait links thus came to dominate the DPP's policy direction.
Under the direction of Hsu, the party in 1998 held an internal debate to discuss its China policies, concluding that Taiwan must "strengthen its base and then go west," adding the seeds of unification ideas into the localization party.
As a result, the party's political logic today is neither unambiguously pro-unification nor pro-independence, creating a difficult situation where its policies sway back and forth.
Whether looking from the point of view of the DPP's theoretical logic or the practical situation, localization (or independence and sovereignty) and "boldly going west" (or "active opening") are mutually exclusive.
Unfortunately, these two policy directions coexist in the party's main discourse, which drives the DPP toward pan-blue camp policies.
Haunted by the ghost of the "go west" policy, the party's administrative team has unconsciously accepted a three-stage discourse: the future of Taiwan lies in the economy; the future of the economy lies in China; cross-strait relations must therefore be the government's primary task.
Since the DPP has a long history of interacting with Taiwanese businesspeople operating in China, corruption has naturally occurred again and again. This has also hindered the development of Taiwan's national sovereignty, delaying the correction of the nation's official name, pro-localization education and the writing of a new constitution.
After six years, the disadvantages of "active opening" are clear for all to see. As China-based Taiwanese businesspeople continue to profit, the people of Taiwan suffer, localization forces fade and the gap between rich and poor rapidly broadens. The government, meanwhile, is losing public support.
Oddly, the Conference on Sustaining Taiwan's Economic Development is slated to take place this month, and the public is calling for the opening of direct links. It is a repetition of 2001's Economic Development Advisory Conference, where the "active opening, effective management" policy was launched. The government has even mentioned "confident opening" this time around.
The DPP has indeed proposed many slogans regarding its China policy, from "boldly going west," "strengthening the base and going west" and "active opening" to the latest "confident opening." It seems that the conflicts between Chen and Lee and between their supporters, will continue to worsen. The problem is that until China recognizes Taiwan's sovereignty, "political independence" and "economic integration" -- that is, "confident opening" and "boldly going west" -- will never be able to coexist.
Huang Tien-lin is a former national policy adviser to the president.
Translated by Eddy Chang
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS