Why Anger The Dragon?
As a vote looms, Taiwan seems ready to abandon an era of defiant nationalism.
Ken Wen, 60, is fed up with Taiwan's pro-independence president, Chen Shui-bian. Wen, a home builder, voted for Chen and his Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) back in 2000. In so doing, he helped end the 50-year rule of the Kuomintang, which has traditionally opposed independence from China. But now, after eight years of corruption scandals, cross-strait tensions and poor economic performance, Wen says it's time for another change. At a rally in the port city of Keelung last week, he said he planned to vote for the KMT's Ma Ying-jeou for president on March 22, hoping Ma will boost Taiwan's stagnant economy by strengthening links with China. "If we don't open up more, we're finished," Wen says.
That's a common view in Taiwan these days. In fact, both candidates in the upcoming vote—Ma and his DPP challenger, Frank Hsieh—have promised to open Taiwan's economy to the giant next door and to take a more moderate tone with Beijing. But if the front-runner Ma, who is Hong Kong-born, triumphs over native son Hsieh, the voters' message will be especially clear. Ordinary Taiwanese will have rejected Chen's confrontational tactics: a victory not just for moderates like Ma, but also for Chinese President Hu Jintao, who's taken a more restrained approach to the island in recent years. And by electing the first mainland-born leader since the end of Taiwan's authoritarian era 20 years ago, locals will also have stepped away from the identity politics that have long divided this island.
As all this suggests, a Ma victory would have far-reaching implications. First, of course, it would cool off one of the world's most dangerous flashpoints, the one place that could actually spark a war between China and the United States. (Beijing views Taiwan as part of its territory and has threatened force if the island makes a permanent break; Washington has pledged to help its democratic ally if attacked).
Since 2000, China and Taiwan have been locked in a vicious circle: Beijing has refused to deal with the island's pro-independence government, and Chen has inflamed tensions by loudly trumpeting the island's sovereignty. But Ma wants to break this cycle with expanded economic links and engagement with Beijing. His pledges include the opening of direct cross-strait flights by May 2009 (travelers currently must touch down in a third location, adding several hours to trips), lifting caps on China-bound investment (helping Taiwan firms better tap the mainland market), allowing more Chinese tourists to visit the island (they're currently limited to 1,000 a day) and opening Taiwan's economy to more Chinese investment. "There's no need to antagonize the dragon," Ma adviser Su Chi put it in an interview in January. His boss has even proposed to restart political talks with Beijing, which have been suspended since 1999.
Oh, and then there's the pandas. Unlike Chen, Ma has said he'd accept China's standing offer of two of the cuddly bears (the pair are currently cooling their paws in Sichuan).
But is Taiwan ready to put a panda-hugger in office? Despite Ma's lead in the polls, he's not yet a shoo-in. Pro-independence sentiment and Taiwan pride remain near record highs; 21 percent of islanders back full independence and 44 percent identify themselves as Taiwanese only, according to recent survey data. As a mainlander, Ma remains vulnerable to attacks on his patriotism; if elected, he'd be first the non-local-born president since the autocrat Chiang Ching-kuo (who was Chiang Kai-Shek's son) died 20 years ago. Some Taiwanese say they still won't vote for a mainlander, and fear a Ma victory could usher in a return to KMT authoritarianism.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: scrapp331 @ 03/24/2008 2:44:20 AM
Comment: Living and working in Taiwan does not equat to understanding Taiwan -- neither does many years of listening to propaganda from one side or the other. You're obviously on the DPP side and believe what they tell you. My comments were that you do not know Jonathan, you do not know the background research that he has done for the article, the people he has interviewed, his understanding of Mandarin, Taiwanese or other languages and the culture of Taiwan. Jonathan has in fact criticized the KMT in many of his other articles -- so to say that he does not know how to publicly criticize the KMT makes your points moot. Individual corruptions in the DPP while in office have significance, while allegations that Ma's wife stole a newspaper in another country and without any consequence to Taiwan at the time (vs money sponsored by public taxes) is not of the same significance. Just because one does not agree with your opinion and viewpoint does not mean they have not done deep thinking or critical analysis. Sometimes being mired too deep into the island's politics causes some to miss the big picture -- which Taiwanese voters delivered this past weekend, supporting everything Jonathan wrote is his article. So, care to retract your comments that he did not know what he was talking about?
As for Jonathan not "understand[ing] how the surveys are conducted, publicized and interpreted plus how people living under KMT respond to survey", I quote one of his other articles, which clearly indicates he truly understands the issue: "But publicly available polls in Taiwan have a credibility problem. Many are conducted by partisan media outlets and have proved unreliable."
To state that the KMT controls everything, from mass media, to school systems, to civil service, etc, is then ignoring the work the DPP has done over the past eight years, and also conveniently ignores mass media such as the Liberty Times and FTV (??????). You attacked Jonathan for not doing his background research and not understanding the issues -- rather it is you who did not do your research on Jonathan or understanding, and just used your politicized opinion to try and justify your attacks. I am not Taiwanese, cannot vote, and do not have any local political affiliation. I just hate when people such as yourself try to pull a "holier than thou" kind of argument and assume that because someone doesn't share your opinions, they know nothing on the subject. As the old saying goes, when you "assume" you make an "A-S-S" out of "U", but this time not "ME", nor Jonathan for that matter.
Posted By: Diaoan Lang @ 03/21/2008 11:59:48 PM
Comment: Living and working in Taiwan for many years does not equate understanding Taiwan. Most of the Chinese who moved to Taiwan after World War II don't know anything about the island. Most of the people who grow up in the school system in Taiwan don't know Taiwan because they are not taught in the school system when they were growing up and they are scared to question.
Living under the Chinese monopoly of mass communication, shool system, civil services, law enforcement system, and the judicial system most people have learned not to question, not to express opinions and not to object. Echoing the information from Taiwan without probing is what the Taiwanese were taught. The reporters in Taiwan tend to do it everyday. Have you heard of any KMT members examining the KMT? They are generally scared to do so. It is amazing that a Newsweek reporter does the same.
A person without the experiences of refraining from publicly criticizing KMT would not comprehend how the system work. Reporting based on the public information in Taiwan without probing is a sign of betraying the journalism of free world.
Brainwashing and smear campaign are generally the trademarks of Chinese politics, both in China and in Taiwan.
If individual corruptions in the DPP teams is critical then the allegation that Ma's wife stole a newspaper from library would have similar significance. It takes much more deep thinking to comprehend the politics of Taiwan.
I expect good magazine like Newsweek to spread wisdom rather than campaigning for one side.
Posted By: Diaoan Lang @ 03/21/2008 11:37:36 PM
Comment: Livng and working in Taiwan does not mean a person will have a clear mind. Increasing number of people growing up in Taiwan echoing KMT's propaganda slowly learn to question KMT and the words in their media. If Jonathan intend to do genuine journalism he would include the facts before he made the inferences and judgment. He would need to observe the changing of content and the number and he would have to understand how the surveys are conducted, publicized and interpreted plus how people living under KMT respond to survey. Under Chinese influence people learn not to tell the truth to survive. Many of those who migrate to USA from Taiwan learn to drop the old habit of echoing the KMT propaganda and slowly learn to express opinions and question the mass media. Has anyone heard of any KMT members examining their leaders? KMT has been monopolizing the mass media, the shool system, the civil srvice system, and the judicial system. Talking about smear campaign, that is a key trademark of KMT.
People who has not refrained from echoing KMT would neve understand this.