Following the transition of power from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in 2000, Taiwan has become notorious for its chaotic politics. Although the nation's petty political squabbles and its raucous legislature cannot escape public criticism, it is far from being the most chaotic nation in the world.
To evaluate whether or not a nation is politically stable, the World Bank once every two years interviews heads of transnational corporations and local enterprises, members of think tanks, non-governmental organizations and research institutions, and then draws a table explaining each nation's performance in this regard.
Taiwan's political chaos began following the 2000 presidential election. Nonetheless, it was not until 2004 that most people started worrying about the nation's future, after the assassination attempt against President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) on the eve of the presidential election. Therefore, let us review the World Bank's appraisal of Taiwan's political stability for that eventful year.
Of 208 countries, Taiwan scored 62.6 points and was ranked 77th, a passable performance. However, other surveys conducted by various organizations on national competitiveness suggest that Taiwan should rank among the world's 20 most competitive nations. Therefore, it would be correct to infer that Taiwan's political stability is lagging far behind its competitiveness. That is, the nation's political instability has diminished the nation's competitiveness.
By comparison, South Korea has fared more poorly in this regard, with its former president even thrown behind bars. That is why it scored a below-average 59.7. It is only fair and reasonable to see Taiwan fare better than South Korea, but it is surprising to see that the nation has overtaken the US, which had 60.7 points.
As to China, there is no sign of political infighting within the Chinese leadership, but its government is much more corrupt than Taiwan's and 80,000 protests are reported each year throughout the country. Although China has a lot to do to improve its rule of law, many believe that China has fared much better than Taiwan in every aspect.
The truth is that China only scored 46.6 points in the World Bank's survey. Whether or not Taiwan performed up to par has to be compared with a host of nations that democratized in the "third wave of democratization."
The 1973 revolution in Portugal initiated the process that political scientists later called the third wave of democratization, a process which then spread to Spain, Latin America, East Asia, the Philippines, South Korea and a host of Communist nations. Although Chinese students' attempts to "democratize" China were suppressed by Beijing in 1989, the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991 into 20-odd independent countries aiming to uphold democracy. Interestingly, Taiwan turned out to be the last nation to be listed as part of the third wave of democratization.
Since then, people in some of these countries have begun to see life improve. These include Portugal, the Baltic states, Hungary and Chile, while people in other countries, such as the Phillipines, still live in deep distress.
Excepting African countries, after comparing a total of 40 countries that went through "the third way of democratization," Taiwan is one of the 10 most politically stable nations on the list. The rankings on the list are as follows: Portugal, Latvia, Estonia, Chile, Hungary, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Spain, Greece and Taiwan.
The results of the survey are a far cry from how Taiwanese look at their own country. However, this explains a contradictory phenomenon: When political unrest sets in, rich Taiwanese flee the nation while foreign investors tend to pour more money in. That's why the stock market has been able to keep up in recent years, if only barely.
After viewing this report, I have come to the conclusion that our politicians should be held responsible for political unrest and loss of competitiveness. It is, however, also comforting, because we see that many countries are worse off than Taiwan.
Lin Cho-shui is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
The Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercises, the largest naval exercise in the region, are aimed at deepening international collaboration and interaction while strengthening tactical capabilities and flexibility in tackling maritime crises. China was invited to participate in RIMPAC in 2014 and 2016, but it was excluded this year. The underlying reason is that Beijing’s ambitions of regional expansion and challenging the international order have raised global concern. The world has made clear its suspicions of China, and its exclusion from RIMPAC this year will bring about a sea change in years to come. The purpose of excluding China is primarily
In 2010, while speaking to a Taiwanese group in California, I was asked during a question-and-answer session: “What do you think of Confucius Institutes?” Confucius Institutes had been gaining popularity at the time, but despite that, my answer was quick and to the point. “Beware of them, they are Trojan horses.” Few grasped the implications, yet now, more than a decade later, the US Government Accountability Office has finally woken up to the danger they pose. There are barely five institutes left where once there were more than 100. A few years later, in a different discussion with Pavel Suian, a former Romanian
Midnight on Monday marked the 27th anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong from British to Chinese sovereignty. Under the terms of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, an international treaty lodged at the UN, China promised that Hong Kongers’ way of life would remain unchanged for 50 years and the territory would have “a high degree of autonomy” under the so-called “one country, two systems” framework. Beijing’s crushing of the 2019-2020 anti-extradition law protests and imposition of the National Security Law in 2020, overriding even the pretense that Hong Kong’s autonomy would be respected, is a profound reminder to Taiwanese —
Fear is a powerful emotion. Major media outlets play on fear to draw in viewers and hold their attention. Book publishers relish opportunities to release titles that grab attention. For example, I once was told — semi-jokingly — that if I wanted to sell a lot of copies of my books, I should put a mushroom cloud over a picture of Taipei on the book cover. I declined that advice. But in the process, I was reminded that fear sells. When fear intrudes on policymaking it can cloud sound judgments. There is a tension in government, though, because intelligence agencies are