It may have been a bit of an exaggeration last week when Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) said that ever since the DPP first came to power in 2000, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), suddenly in opposition, at every turn "set the public against the [DPP] government."
But he wasn't that far off the mark.
It is undeniable that on numerous issues of paramount importance to the welfare of this country, from national defense appropriation budgets to a Central Election Commission ruling on the voting system to be used in next year's elections, the KMT has acted -- in and out of the legislature -- in ways that undermined the authority of the democratically elected central government and thereby flouted the laws that hold this nation together.
Strangely, despite the roguish nature of the KMT, the party and its leadership have met with scarce criticism from the public and, even more perturbing, from the DPP government itself. As a consequence, the less the KMT has been called to account for its conduct unbecoming a democracy, the more daring its challenges to the law and the system have become.
This bodes terribly ill if the KMT were to win the presidential election. As an opposition party for the past seven years, the KMT has had to keep up the pretense of being part of a democratic system, lest it risk being sidelined or, worse, its actions spark civil unrest.
So the KMT has adopted the language of democracy and, especially around election time, has danced the dance.
But given its historical baggage, its affiliations with the far-from-democratic Beijing and its track record as the opposition, it is clear that if it were to regain power, the veneer of acceding to democratic principles would be replaced by what still lies at the core of the party: authoritarianism.
If, while in opposition, a party cannot respect democratic principles and due process, how can we expect that, once in power, its regard for the constellation of views that constitute a democracy will suddenly reactivate? Let's not kid ourselves: If the KMT were to come to power and were to continue applying its vandal's mindset to governance, the nation's politics would be pushed back many years -- possibly to a time when being a member of the opposition was a dangerous thing.
Democracy is a frail creature. It is not something that reaches an endpoint and then congeals into a fixed state. Rather, it is fluid, a gradient on the spectrum of political systems. Over time, depending on circumstances and who is in power, nations slide back and forth along that spectrum.
It is so fragile that in certain situations -- following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, for instance -- even "mature" democracies like the US, Britain, Canada and Australia undermine their own great democratic accomplishments. Some, like the last two, do not even need to have been attacked to drastically alter their systems, trump their checks and balances, clamp down on their media and adopt means that have more in common with Orwellian nightmares than democracies worthy of the name.
Next year's vote will be more than just about which party comes to power. It will be about whether Taiwan continues along the road of democracy or takes a sudden turn and careens dangerously toward authoritarianism.
US president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
RSS