While he was in office, president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) published a book entitled The Road to Democracy: Taiwan’s Pursuit of Identity (台灣的主張). It was appropriate and justified for Lee to write about democracy. In it, he laid out his intentions and concerns as a leader, as well as showing his determined character.
The political effect of the book was to give the public a clear view of where the nation was headed, and thus a sense of security. Although many people voiced their opposition to what Lee stood for, they could direct those opinions against concrete positions.
This allowed Lee — as a democratically elected president — to speak in the name of those who voted for him and expound his notions of governance. Those who held different opinions could express their views, too. The interaction between these varying opinions contributed to strengthening the nation’s democratic system.
But for President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), doing things this way is outmoded. Right after Ma took office, opposition parties started accusing him of being an agent of China. At the time they could not produce much proof to back up the accusation, but since then, more evidence has come to light through Ma and his government’s policies.
As things stand, if the Ma government has any standpoint at all on Taiwan, it is that Taiwan does not dare express its standpoint. Foreign media outlets must find it hard to believe that a popularly elected president could have such an attitude.
When Ma was elected last year, no one took the opposition seriously when it called Ma an agent of China. The jibe was seen as run-of-the-mill political jousting and election rhetoric. More than a year has passed and the public has discovered that Ma talks about little other than “the mainland.” Ma’s frequent references to the “mainland” are worrying Taiwanese and the nation’s traditional allies such as the US and Japan. The foreign media have also started to view Taiwan from Ma’s political standpoint.
There is no need to go on at length about Ma’s efforts to Sinicize Taiwan. Anyone who knows anything about political developments in Taiwan over the past year can see that the Taiwanese government is looking more and more like an agent or local government of China, as evidenced in its policies on education, law and order and cross-strait aviation, as well as its lack of enthusiasm for taking part in international organizations, and many other things.
There has been a series of so-called cross-strait negotiations, but there is not much real negotiating going on. Rather, the two sides are working together to achieve a common goal. Ma likes to present the results of these talks as his political achievements, but he has no answer to the opposition’s accusation that the price paid for Beijing’s acquiescence to the various agreements has been the gradual abandonment of Taiwan’s sovereignty. Even where Beijing has not demanded anything, the Ma government is willing to serve up concessions on a plate — all for the sake of getting favorable publicity in the media.
But what kind of a China is Ma working for? Here we see something even more worrying — Ma’s illusions about Beijing’s goodwill. Whatever the Beijing government does or does not do, Ma interprets it as a sign of China’s goodwill toward Taiwan. On the other hand, any opinion raised by the Taiwanese public in opposition to the government’s excessive reliance on China is mocked as troublemaking and rumormongering.
To create this imaginary “goodwill,” Ma has not been afraid to overstep the boundaries of democracy, such as allowing the police to exceed their legal powers, leading to clashes during the visit of Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) last November.
Following those events, the government punished Lin Chia-fan (林佳範) and Lee Ming-tsung (李明璁), two professors at state-run universities who criticized the government’s handling of Chen’s visit, under the soon-to-be-scrapped terms of the oppressive Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法).
What’s even more shocking is the government has been happy to see pro-Chinese elements in both Taiwan and China vilify and insult internationally renowned religious and political leaders — the Dalai Lama and exiled Uighur activist Rebiya Kadeer.
Comments by Taiwan’s premier and minister of the interior show that they have become mouthpieces for Beijing. What kind of identity can such a government be pursuing for Taiwan?
Before Ma took office, if there was one standpoint in Taiwan that transcended ideological boundaries between political leaders, parties and factions and which had the support of the public, it was adherence to democracy. However, this consensus is gradually becoming warped under the influence of the ruling Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) cultural identity, elitism and what it considers to be Taiwan’s economic interests. KMT-alligned “pan-blue” political figures now see alignment with China as the only possible solution for Taiwan.
In pursuing this solution, they throw away the accumulated gains of Taiwan’s democracy. One must ask whether a solution for which democracy is forfeited can be called a solution at all.
Chu Ping-tzu is an associate professor in the Department of Chinese Literature at National Tsing Hua University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS