Last year Taiwan experienced wave after wave of political disturbances. First there were charges of corruption against some of President Chen Shui-bian's (
Then there were allegations of first lady Wu Shu-jen's (
The pro-China media and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) / People First Party (PFP) then launched ferocious mass demonstrations with former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Shih Ming-teh (施明德) as a figurehead in an attempt to depose Chen.
While street demonstrations 24 hours a day are prohibited in Taipei, then-mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) decided to make an exception and permitted protesters to conduct day-long sit-ins virtually from Sept. 9 through Nov. 29.
Ma even showed up at the sit-in on Ketagalan Boulevard to show his support for the red shirts. Shih's attempts to spread the red shirts' rebellion to southern Taiwan, however, were rebuffed and the revolt eventually fizzled.
Meanwhile, the KMT/PFP forces tried on three occasions to depose the president in the legislature but were unable to muster the two-thirds majority required to initiate a referendum.
The reaction of the centrist voters to the irrational and often illegal attempt to undermine the rule of law and to scuttle democratic institutions turned into deep resentment of the red shirts, the pan-blue camp and the media and the realization that the revolt's target was not just Chen's family or the DPP, but rather the survival of Taiwan as a sovereign state.
As the red shirts signified so vividly, their true aim was to force Chen's resignation so the KMT could in effect take the reins of government before the presidential election in 2008 and be in a better position to deliver Taiwan into Beijing's hands.
Another result of the rebellion was the erosion of Ma's carefully cultivated image as a clean politician of integrity. The 81 days of unruly demonstrations caused traffic jams, public disturbance and inconvenienced nearby hospitals and schools.
Furthermore, while Ma was pressuring Chen to resign, based on the alleged abuse of the "state affairs fund," Ma himself had been depositing special mayoral allowance into his personal bank account for years. His aide also forged phony receipts to draw money from the special fund.
Such hypocrisy undermined Ma's credibility.
Political expediency was given priority over the rule of law. While paying lip service to judicial independence, Ma didn't hesitate to publicly pressure the prosecutor's office to indict Wu.
While Ma initially opposed the pan-blue camp's move to depose president Chen in the legislature since the KMT/PFP coalition was unlikely to muster the required two-thirds majority, he nevertheless succumbed to pressure from then-PFP chairman Chief James Soong (宋楚瑜) and went along with the motion. Such wishy-washy political style casts serious doubt on Ma's ability to lead and unify a seriously deeply nation.
After the failure of the red shirt rebellion came the Dec. 9 mayoral elections. Opinion polls by the pro-Chinese media predicted that KMT candidate Huang Jun-ying (
Voters were evidently turned off by the pan-blue camp's never-ending, overly aggressive moves to overthrow the Taiwanese government through illegal means.
In Taipei, a city long dominated by pro-KMT voters, DPP candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) still garnered a decent 41 percent of the votes.
The outcome of the mayoral elections indicates two things.
First, despite their disappointment with Chen and the DPP, the core party's supporters and some centrist voters realized the importance of casting votes for the DPP candidates, not so much to support the DPP but rather to preserve Taiwan's democracy and sovereignty. This collective wisdom will be a determining factor in the presidential election.
Second, Ma went to Kaohsiung repeatedly, spending 18 days there to campaign for the KMT candidate. He claimed the vote would demonstrate citizens' trust in the KMT. The outcome showed that Ma's vaunted charisma is in reality nothing but a castle in the air.
It was widely believed before last year's events that Ma would win the 2008 presidential election hands down. His chances of victory are in serious jeopardy now that people can see more clearly his true character.
Earlier last year, the DPP's prospects looked bleak. It seemed as though the party was destined to lose both the legislative elections this year and the presidential election in 2008. But the DPP has now been given a chance to start anew.
Taiwanese identity has been steadily rising. A survey conducted by the Straits Exchange Foundation last November showed that 58 percent of respondents identified themselves as Taiwanese and only 16 percent as Chinese. Seventeen percent considered themselves both Taiwanese and Chinese. Another recent survey conducted jointly by the National Chengchi University and two other universities indicated that with Beijing's acquiescence, 62 percent of the respondents would seek formal independence. A further 54 percent said independence should be the goal in spite of Beijing's objections.
The DPP must revert back to the spirit and principles that the party was founded on -- both in words and deeds. It must represent and reflect the core democratic values of the Taiwanese. It must be steadfast in protecting the Taiwanese people's right to determine their own future.
This is the only way to preserve the freedom of the present and future generations of Taiwanese.
Li Thian-hok is a freelance commentator based in Pennsylvania.
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS