Taiwan is a vibrant democracy. That has become obvious from the primary campaign for the presidential elections scheduled for Jan. 11 next year. Much is at stake: Taiwan’s future as a free and democratic country, which is under immense threat from its giant neighbor, the People’s Republic of China.
The people of Taiwan have worked hard to achieve their democracy, and are eager to fulfill the dream of being accepted by the international community as a full and equal member. How to move forward, and how fast, toward that goal has become a dividing line in the democratic camp: Which road is best for Taiwan?
On one side stands President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), who has carved out a trajectory of carefully moving toward Taiwan’s ultimate goals on the basis of gradual reforms, and — for now — an acceptance of the “status quo” across the Taiwan Strait.
However, this is a dynamic “status quo,” which aims to strengthen Taiwan’s democracy, and solidify its relations with like-minded countries that adhere to the same values of democracy and human rights.
Tsai’s moderate approach has won praise from the international community, in particular the US, Europe and other like-minded countries such as India, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.
On the other side stands former premier and former Tainan mayor William Lai (賴清德), who advocates a faster pace and a more proactive approach in moving toward cementing Taiwan’s place in the international community as a free and independent nation.
Lai also favors faster implementation of reforms, particularly in the judicial system. Lai has broad support among the deeper-green part of Taiwan’s political spectrum.
What then is the best way forward?
Of course it is up to Taiwanese to make the ultimate decision, but as a lifelong friend of Taiwan who has been closely involved in the movement for human rights and democracy for many decades, I would like to humbly submit the following considerations:
First, I might mention that I know Tsai and Lai. Both are extremely dedicated people, and have a clear vision for Taiwan’s future and how to get there. Their love for Taiwan is unquestionable. The difference between the two is the pace of their approach.
Second, it is essential that those who support democracy and a free future for Taiwan remain united. If the pan-green camp is divided, this would open up the possibility of a win by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which would be a step backward and detrimental for the future of Taiwan and its people.
Third, the China threat is real. Through influence operations, military threats, economic measures and political intimidation, China will continue its efforts to isolate Taiwan internationally and attempt to force the nation into its unwelcome embrace.
Because of these considerations, it is essential for Tsai and Lai to resolve their differences and form a united team that would be strong enough to face the hurdles and immense pressures ahead.
A Tsai-Lai ticket headed by Tsai would be the formula that would have the highest probability of success. It would contain the elements of stability and continuity as represented by Tsai, and at the same time incorporate the promise of a new push and a more progressive approach, as represented by Lai.
Gerrit van der Wees is a former Dutch diplomat. From 1980 through 2016 he served as the editor of Taiwan Communique. Since 2012 he has taught the history of Taiwan at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.
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