These days, Taiwanese media spend almost all of their energy on producing stories about the need for President Chen Shui-bian (
The opposition has failed to have Chen legally recalled and now is turning to political means. The difference in the present effort is that it is being made by non-governmental organizations and individuals, based primarily on information that has not been proven.
Nonetheless, it has generated a large number of supporters, mostly pan-blue of course, but also some intellectuals and dissatisfied pan-green followers. However, increasingly we now see more of the intellectuals, some of whom were originally gung-ho with their anti-Chen rhetoric, questioning the wisdom of bringing Chen down.
They are beginning to write about the need to strengthen democracy, irrespective of which individuals hold office. Some are even pondering the worth of spending so much time and effort on a task that will be rendered pointless in 19 months from now.
One might think that this effort is meant to keep the governing party on the back foot, giving the opposition the time and political capital to prepare for the legislative elections at the end of next year, and the presidential election soon after. If the goal is to keep the governing party occupied, then the opposition is doing well.
They are already working on the difficult task of deciding who among their ranks will be chosen to run for their party and how to rid themselves of black gold and stolen assets. They have pretty much chosen their candidate for the presidential election.
They will have the help of what is called the "mainstream media" -- that is, supporters of the pan-blue camp. The discipline of the media has vanished as the standard and objectivity of articles in the newspapers and TV talk shows seems to have collapsed.
One recent example: a charge that claimed foreign workers had been treated badly and underpaid by their employer. Among the company executives who were charged was a well-known political figure, and they were totally cleared by the judiciary. Very little of this information was mentioned in the media, however.
Over the last six years, badly needed laws and governmental reforms have been held up by the opposition.
To move forward, the government will have to take an almost completely new approach to its job. During these 19 months before the presidential election, there will be uncertainties about personnel in both the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The most likely presidential candidate for the latter is very likely going to be Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
There are also differences on important issues within the KMT that need to be resolved. In the DPP, the priority is to handle the campaign to remove Chen while maintaining the integrity of the office of the president. The question of who will be the DPP's presidential candidate is secondary and still unclear.
Beyond that, the differences within the party on many fundamental issues will be difficult to resolve. Nineteen months may seem a long time to resolve these issues, but there is much to do in preparation for the presidential election.
Whichever party wins will be able to establish the laws needed to pursue their domestic objectives. How that will be done with the policy differences that exist within Taiwan, and with the interests of both the US and China taken into account, is difficult to say.
The year 2000 saw Taiwan's first democratic change in governing parties and major adjustments were necessary.
Inevitably, the winner and the loser had little experience in either ruling a country, or being in opposition. If the present parties continue as now after 2008, there will likely be changes, but not as we have witnessed over the last six years.
There would likely be more effort to develop better communication and reconciliation with each other.
If the result is still a split government, but turned on its head with the legislature having a DPP majority, and the president coming from the KMT, then the differences will remain more like the present. But if the next two elections see the legislature and the Executive Yuan controlled by the same party, then changes will be a far more intense matter for both sides of politics.
For the two most important countries for Taiwan, the US and China, there will be much uncertainty. The uncertainty for China will be the greatest. Even if the KMT wins -- which most people believe is best for China -- to what extent that party will be able to pursue its objectives is questionable, as a large part of the population is not supportive of the KMT's platform.
Further, even if the KMT's objective of a closer relationship with China is fulfilled, this is far short of what Beijing wants. If on the other hand, the DPP can win both the legislature and the presidency, China may have the difficult task of developing a policy that will not overly challenge the US.
For the US, the hope is for a KMT that will not move too close to China, or a DPP that can develop a better relationship with China. The US will likely continue its present policies.
The key question will be whether the US can have a more effective dialogue with a Taiwan that remains an important partner in a growing region. There are crucial changes ahead that could determine the future of Taiwan's democracy and its national identity.
The people of Taiwan will make that decision. But what they now seem to be doing is accepting a step toward a different kind of democracy, and that is only 19 months ahead.
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.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS