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.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS