As the presidential election draws closer, it is odd that a once-autocratic political party with blood on its hands and forced out of power could win favor and find itself compatible with democracy.
Taiwan is a unique nation for allowing such a thing to happen. After witnessing the first transition of power in 2000, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) not only “exiled” former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and regained power in 2008, its presidential ticket seems to have not fallen far behind the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) presidential ticket in polling this time.
It is tragic that Taiwan’s democratic system does not possess a healthy multiparty system; that the KMT has become perhaps the only possibility for a transition of power. Its historical baggage has pro-China written into its DNA, from Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) “recovery of mainland China,” to endorsement of China’s so-called “1992 consensus,” to talk of a cross-strait service and trade agreement: The KMT has never wavered in its pro-China stance to maximize its interests.
It is unhealthy that the only choice is between a pro-Taiwan party and a party capitalizing on China. Although the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and its chairman and presidential candidate, Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), have risen to power due to antipathy toward the DPP-KMT rivalry, Ko’s evasiveness on cross-strait policy and his “blue-white alliance” proposal has made the TPP a second KMT — seeking dividends under the false promise of cross-strait peace.
This is the biggest predicament for Taiwanese: an inability to agree with the KMT’s pro-China stance to sell out Taiwan, yet not given a second pro-Taiwan political party to endorse. As a result, the DPP is often labeled as turning Taiwan into a one-party system, and always faces obstruction in its affairs with China.
Taiwan’s democracy needs three things:
First is solidarity against a common enemy. Taiwanese must vote for a presidential candidate and party that seek to safeguard democracy and freedom, especially one that vows to establish close ties with other democraties and bolster national defense. A party that still believes in the ficticious “1992 consensus” is not an option. The collapse of the blue-white alliance plans and Hon Hai Precision Industry Co founder Terry Gou’s (郭台銘) decision to bow out of the race should have shown everyone how influential Chinese interference is. Belief in a “one China” peace treaty or restarting the cross-strait service trade agreement is delusional.
Second is the promotion of social benefits and policies. As internal affairs and social issues have been a chink in the DPP’s armor as opposed to its success in diplomacy, it would have to keep introducing plans such as private university subsidies, rental subsidies or minimum wage legislation. It would have to reinforce social security and design an elderly-friendly environment. It would be hard-pressed to implement immediate reform, but its presidential candidate should seek cooperation with civil groups and academics to achieve it.
Third is to strive for a healthy multiparty system.
The priority is how to keep Taiwan’s democracy from corruption when there is not an alternative pro-Taiwan party. So far, the best option is to empower a pro-Taiwan party, while civil groups play overseer. In this way, they could supervise the DPP in domestic terms while uniting with the DPP to counter China in diplomacy. Only by allowing pro-Taiwan parties and civil groups to supervise could a second pro-Taiwan political party be nurtured to bring about a healthy political system. Establishing a fair and impartial system for newly developed parties would be a good start.
Every Taiwanese has the duty to find a resolution to Taiwan’s predicament. It is up to them to vote for a pro-Taiwan party and ensure that it has the momentum and incentive to keep improving. Taiwanese owe it to themselves, to their predecessors who fought for its democracy and to the world.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS