During the course of his recent speech in the National People’s Congress (NPC), Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) said the process of Taiwan’s economic integration with China would continue, adding that if Taiwan were to behave, this might eventually become the basis for a free trade agreement.
There was nothing new in Wen’s remark about Taiwan regarding closer political and economic relations. It was vague and lacking in specifics.
For instance, Wen called for “fair and reasonable arrangements” for Taiwan’s participation in international organizations. But there was nothing to suggest how to go about it nor what the scope of Taiwan’s international participation would be.
In the same way, he talked about a formal cessation of hostilities with Taiwan. He didn’t indicate, however, if there would be a formal peace treaty or some other defined mechanism of dialogue or cooperation between the militaries of the two countries.
The administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is focusing on the economic aspects of the relationship, and is not too keen to take up the political and military aspects.
This approach is dangerous, because over time the relative weight of China’s economic and political power might become so overwhelming that Taiwan would not have any option but to wind up as another Hong Kong.
It won’t be much fun being in that situation when China is faced with problems such as the serious concern about the adequacy of the US$585 billion stimulus plan China announced in November, as well as its distribution and the level of transparency involved.
Some of the stimulus money is said to be a repackaging of the old spending plans.
Of the overall planned spending, nearly US$175 billion will come from the central government and the rest from banks, investors and local governments.
Without specific guidelines, all this seems to be a questionable arrangement, to say the least.
There will be very little transparency, particularly with regard to spending by local governments and other agencies on pet projects, which will involve corruption and wasteful expenditure. Obviously, much of the stimulus money will go into infrastructure projects like building roads and railways.
Some party elders are worried about this on two levels. First, they would like more spending for social sectors like health and education. Their second worry is the lack of transparency and the consequent need for democratic functioning.
Talking about the priorities of the stimulus package, Du Guang (杜光), a party elder, reportedly said: “You have to look at how to expand demand in the long term … Social spending is more important than building railways, expressways and other basic infrastructure.”
And there is serious concern about corruption, as expressed in a Jan. 20 letter from some elders to Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) and the party leadership.
A New York Times report quoted the letter as saying: “We are extremely worried that the privileged and the corrupt will seize this opportunity to fatten themselves … and intensify social conflict.”
They therefore urged the party leadership to free the media and let courts operate without interference to ensure greater transparency and a fairer judicial process.
In other words, the party should take this opportunity of economic slowdown to readjust economic priorities with greater focus on social spending, combined with democracy.
As one elder said: “The greater the difficulties, the greater the need for democracy.”
The letter in a way reaffirmed China’s “Charter 08,” which listed the sad political reality of the country and the need for democratic reforms.
The charter said, in part: “The political reality, which is plain for anyone to see, is that China has many laws but no rule of law; it has a Constitution but no constitutional government. The ruling elite continues to cling to its authoritarian power and fights off any move toward political change.”
This in turn has led to “endemic official corruption … crony capitalism, [and] growing inequality between the wealthy and the poor ... The decline of the current system has reached a point where change is no longer optional.”
But the people of China shouldn’t hold their breath expecting things to change. The chairman of the nominal NPC has categorically rejected any notion that the party might even consider political liberalization.
While addressing the NPC, Standing Committee Chairman Wu Bangguo (吳邦國) warned the legislators that without the Chinese Communist Party in control, China “would be torn by strife and incapable of accomplishing anything.”
Not only did he reject the idea of Western-style multi-party democracy for China, he even argued that China’s one-party rule was superior. And therefore it was imperative that China should maintain “the correct political orientation” laid down by the party.
How the party manages social stability in a country of 1.3 billion people in the midst of growing social unrest from increasing unemployment will be interesting to watch.
Under one-party rule, when there are no legitimate channels of expressing dissent and dissatisfaction, the only conceivable way would be through coercion, fear and control.
Yet, with the current economic slowdown, unemployment is getting worse. Twenty million rural migrants have already lost their jobs in the cities, which is bound to further add to an uneasy situation in rural areas with their already depressed economy.
As Wen told a Cabinet meeting in January: “The country’s unemployment situation is extremely grim.”
Against such a grim background, it defies comprehension that the Ma administration is so keen on integrating with China.
Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS