On Sunday, about 200,000 people took to the streets in Taipei.
As always, it was a colorful display of political views on a range of current issues. That this is happening is a testimony to Taiwan’s still-vibrant democracy.
At the same time, that it is necessary to go out into the streets means that a lot of people are unhappy with the current state of affairs and want a change in direction. Let us attempt to analyze the situation from an outside perspective and see what steps would be appropriate.
A major socioeconomic element driving the dissatisfaction is the weak economy, coupled with the widening income gap. Workers, students and middle and lower income people in general have seen their incomes decline and costs go up. In particular, housing prices have skyrocketed.
The global economy is sputtering, and this may of course have some effect on Taiwan, but the main issue in the view of many people is the discrepancy between the promises of high economic growth made when the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) went into effect about two years ago and the present reality.
A second major theme driving the people into the streets is the encroachment on Taiwan’s media by major pro-China media and business mogul Tsai Eng-meng (蔡衍明). I commented on that development only recently (“Want Want monopoly threatens democracy,” Dec. 26, 2012, page 8).
It does appear that this issue is of deep concern to many, but in particular the young people, the students, who have been out in the streets for several months now. However, the government has turned a deaf ear to their pleas, and recently even blocked amendments to media legislation in the Legislative Yuan designed to prevent such monopolies in the media.
A free press is an essential element of a democratic system. Allowing Taiwan’s media to gradually slide into the control of a conglomerate that is so obviously susceptible to pressures from Beijing is not a responsible policy.
This brings me to the third theme of the rally in Taipei on Sunday: support for a national affairs conference designed to bring about a broad-based dialogue on how to move forward on socioeconomic and political issues.
This idea was first proposed by former DPP chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) in November, when several of these issues were starting to come to a head.
The concept of such a conference is not new to Taiwan. Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) used it very effectively in 1990, when he was preparing for changes in the political system, which led to the major reforms in 1991 and subsequent years. Then, as now, Taiwan was faced with a deep political divide with irreconcilable differences on how to move forward.
At that time, the main issues were parliamentary and constitutional reform, and the June-July 1990 conference eventually led to the retirement of “eternal” legislators who had retained their positions since the late 1940s, and making Taiwan a full democracy in which the legislature and president are elected by the people.
At this time, the main issues causing so many people to rally are enhancing people’s economic well-being, safeguarding democracy and press freedom, and ensuring that people can make their own choice about the country’s future. These are themes that a broad spectrum of political opinion in Taiwan should be able to agree on, so it would be worthwhile to try to bridge the political divide and have a national policy conference to develop a brighter vision for Taiwan and its future.
Nat Bellocchi served as chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan from 1990 through 1995. The views expressed in this article are his own.
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,