With just one day left before the recall vote to decide whether Taiwan Statebuilding Party Legislator Chen Po-wei (陳柏惟) is to retain his seat in Taichung’s Second District, the battle between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Chen’s party has reached a fever pitch.
All of Taiwan is watching the vote, which is sure to be a significant benchmark of the nation’s democratic standing.
The recall against Chen is said to serve as a guide to Taiwan’s democratic society for two reasons: It reflects where the public stands on the spectrum between unification and independence, and it symbolizes the struggle between civil society and politics directed by dirty money.
It is well-known that some members of the Yen (顏) family have a shadowy background in Taichung, where they have been firmly established for many years.
A prominent member of the family, former Non-Partisan Solidarity Union legislator Yen Ching-piao (顏清標), has been accused of various crimes and corruption before and after his time in public office. In 2012, he was sentenced to jail and deprived of his civil rights.
To not interrupt the family’s political power, his son, Yen Kuan-heng (顏寬恒), contested and won the legislative by-election for his father’s seat in 2013.
Although the Democratic Progressive Party nominated Chen Shih-Kai (陳世凱) — who had been working in the local area for many years — to challenge Yen, he lost by a small margin of just more than 1,000 votes.
The Yen family controled the seat and represented the district for nearly 25 years.
This absurd and unorthodox candidate, who treats legislative seats as if they were hereditary, has still managed to win repeated elections. This is not only a reflection of the stubborn chaos of Taiwan’s local elections caused by the intertwining of factionalism and dirty money, but also an example of the “patron-servant” structure.
That is why, when the outsider Chen single-handedly took down the Yen family, it was seen by Taiwanese as an important milestone in the grassroots fight to challenge the corrupt elite.
It has come to represent how civil society still has a chance to change a political environment controlled by factions, and break the control of the corrupt elite, instead of being dominated by it and those who rubber-stamp their decisions.
Just two years later, Chen’s victory, a symbol of the progress of Taiwanese democracy, has come under attack by local forces.
Not only has the Yen family mobilized their resources at the local level, they have also joined with the KMT to attack Chen from all sides, launching a tsunami of rumors and smears — all for the purpose of “reclaiming” the seat that had been monopolized by the Yen family for so long.
No matter a voter’s position, Chen must be protected and the resurgence of the Yen family prevented.
This is not only about preventing the return of money politics and giving Taiwan a chance to rebuild its political environment, but also about telling civil society that elected offices are not hereditary, and that any citizen with passion, ideals and the power to act has the right to bring down those long-standing corrupt political parasites without fear of retribution so that Taiwan can truly build the ideal state we all want.
Su Chun-yu is a student in National Taiwan University’s Graduate Institute of National Development and a member of the Kaohsiung City Youth Affairs Committee.
Translated by Perry Svensson
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS