Taiwan has an unworkable political system.
The Constitution that provides the basis for this government has lasted for 60 years simply because it has been irrelevant. Dictators do not allow their power to be fettered by laws.
Chiang Kai-shek (
Since the dark era of Chiang and his police state, Taiwan has made the first steps toward democracy, but the success of this experiment is far from assured. Given the lack of interest among the nation's political establishment in engaging in a discourse about the nature of Taiwan's democracy, there is cause for much concern.
Earlier this week, for instance, police summoned two professors because for the past few weeks they had been giving speeches criticizing the president and the major parties at CKS Memorial Hall in Taipei.
The police claimed that it was not the content of the speeches that attracted their attention, but rather the fact that the two had allegedly violated the Assembly and Parade Law (
Article 14 of the Constitution says: "The people shall have the freedom of assembly and association."
Except that they don't, because later in the Constitution, Article 23 states "All the freedoms and rights enumerated in the preceding Article shall not be restricted by law except by such as may be necessary to prevent infringement upon the freedoms of other persons, to avert an imminent crisis, to maintain social order or to advance public welfare."
In short, all of the rights enumerated in the Constitution are "guaranteed," so long as the government wants you to have them. Whenever it is necessary to "maintain social order" or "avert an imminent crisis" then any civil rights you think you're entitled to will last as long as a candle flame in a typhoon.
This is why, during the authoritarian period, the government could institute laws such as the Assembly and Parade Law in the first place, while maintaining the fiction that Taiwan was a democracy.
"Sure," people say, "but now things have changed."
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has lost its grip on power. Taiwan is a democracy now. No one is arrested for advocating independence, or for forming a political party anymore.
Which is true. For now.
Yet all of the mechanisms of authoritarianism are still in place.
Why is that? Why haven't our leaders and our intelligentsia made an issue of this? Is it because they don't want Taiwan to be too democratic? Do they want the individual's rights to be forever subordinate to the rights of the state?
Some argue that resistance to the idea that individual rights are inalienable is the influence of Confucianism, of collectivism or of elitism. Such arguments are based on the belief that "isms" make Taiwanese fundamentally different from other people that have experimented with democracy, such as Americans, the French and the British.
Such narrow ideas -- that Oriental despotism is the preferred method of governance for non-Western states -- reek of racism and ignorance. In actuality, Taiwan's elite is so caught up with personalities and partisanship that it cannot discuss principles of governance.
So it is left to the people to ask the important questions: What are the fundamental principles that Taiwanese want their government to uphold? What lines must be drawn between the government and the people?
But most important: Having at last secured their liberty, how can Taiwanese keep it?
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS