The Cross Strait Times

The KMT is probably worried right now. Shih Ming-teh (施明德)’s anti-corruption campaign has turned towards the KMT’s assets, and the Legislative Yuan is investigating them as well. The PFP is also causing trouble — David’s analysis at Jujflop suggest that the PFP pressured the KMT into recalling Chen in order to keep the Pan-Blue alliance intact. There is also the long-stalled arms bill* which the PFP still refuses to vote on; the KMT said it would vote, but is now flip-flopping, probably also due to pressure from the PFP. And now there’s the Taipei mayoral race: KMT’s Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌), PFP’s James Soong (宋楚瑜), and independent Li Ao (李敖) threaten to split the Pan-Blue votes and give the election to DPP’s Frank Hsieh (謝長廷); the KMT is now under pressure to withdraw Hau to ensure Soong’s victory. The KMT and PFP may be allies, but the PFP has made the Pan-Blues act undemocratically; therefore, the KMT should not be afraid to break its alliance with the PFP. The KMT has no need to be worried — if the KMT continues to follow its path of reform and democratization, which current events are helping to catalyze, it can only win the support of the Taiwanese and validate its platform and ideals.

The KMT has long been dogged by its legacy of authoritarianism and corruption. Then, last year, Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) became the KMT’s first democratically elected chairman. Earlier this year, the KMT acknowledged wrongdoing in 228, and more amends are likely to come in the future. Now, Hau has become the first Taipei mayoral candidate democratically selected amongst the KMT. The KMT is turning over a new leaf and taking steps to become the democratic party that KMT founder and National Father Sun Yat-sen wanted it to be. The fact that the KMT is cooperating in the corruption investigations, plus Ma’s hardline stance against Black Gold, can only help. Admitting and redressing wrongs needs to be part of the “new KMT” that can gain public support and votes for the all-important 2008 presidential race.

Democratizing and cleaning up the KMT is especially important because the pro-separation DPP currently operates more democratically than the KMT, and much of its support stems from this fact. However, the DPP, while claiming to support the majority-supported status quo, is actually trying to steer Taiwan towards separation. The KMT, on the other hand, is the party closest to supporting the status quo**. A cleaner, more democratic KMT will certainly draw crowds of followers who are pro-democracy, pro-status quo, and will, as a result, be tougher competition for the DPP.

In the Taipei mayoral elections, the Pan-Blues are still negotiating on how not to split the votes. Ma has been put in a difficult position, as withdrawing Hau for Soong undermines the democratic values that the KMT has finally come to embrace. Backpedaling on democracy is not an acceptable solution. The KMT may have to keep Hau in the race, even if it means losing the election. If there were more time until the election, I would have advocated for a Pan-Blue primary to avoid a rift, but considering the time constraints and the realities of a multi-party system, a better solution would be a run-off election. If a candidate doesn’t win more than 50% of the votes there will be a run-off between the top two candidates. With this solution, no candidate could win the election without majority approval, a truly democratic process.

If worse comes to worse, a KMT-PFP split is acceptable because the two parties will realign out of necessity for the upcoming legislative and presidential elections. The Pan-Blues will not want to lose the presidency. What the KMT cannot afford to do is alienate the everyday Taiwanese voter by going back on its democratic breakthroughs. The KMT must assert itself as a democratic, pro-status quo party in order to gain and retain popular support. The KMT must stick up for itself and embrace the democratic path that Sun Yat-sen would have liked to have seen it embark upon decades ago, even if it means a short-term break with the PFP.

Losing the Taipei mayoral race is an acceptable sacrifice for the KMT if the democratic path can garner enough popular support to win the 2007 legislative and 2008 presidential elections.

Notes:
* The arms package deal deserves its own article, but in short: The ROC must be able to look out for herself, BUT… some say that the USA’s arms package deal is overpriced for its contents and does not adequately fulfill the ROC’s needs for self-defense.
** While the Pan-Blues are called “pro-unification,” the KMT has been clear on ruling out reunification until the Mainland becomes a liberal democracy, advocating status quo in the meantime.

While the Cold War of the West is slowly becoming a memory of a bygone era, the Cold War of the East carries on between the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China. Much the same is at stake, the ideals of Democracy vs. those of Communism, be they watered down and with “Chinese Characteristics” or not. Though this Cold-War of the East hardly seems much of a war at all, with the bulwark that is the PRC ready to pounce upon the miniscule yet highly visible ROC on Taiwan at any moment, it is nonetheless a standing war, and one of great consequence.

And this is precisely what must be understood by all. Despite friendly overtures between the KMT and the CCP in recent years, a silent war of ideas rages on. The ROC, which still claims sovereignty over the Chinese mainland, stands as a staunch challenge to the authoritarian style of government currently presiding over the mainland. As such, Taiwan serves as a shining and successful example of a thriving society that is both Democratic and Chinese at the same time, proving that the two are not incompatible and thus challenging the status quo on the mainland. Democracy and Socialist authoritarianism, the two contending schools of thought of the modern era, thus continues to be debated within the minds of all Chinese and within the Chinese civilization itself, no different than the passionate debates between the schools of Confucian, Legalist, and Taoist schools of thought during the “Golden Age”.

Recognizing the ongoing debate that the claim of sovereignty poses to the civilization, it is now easy to see how the Taiwan independence issue is really the issue of whether this debate (the debate between Democracy and Authoritariansim) is to be a continued. The issue of secession is not one of ethnicity, as it is often construed to be, but rather the question of whether the Democratic school will continue to vie for its proper place within the Chinese civilization. As long as the ROC retains its claim of sovereignty over the mainland, and by extension the Chinese civilization itself, the question of democracy continues to be a point of debate. However, if the ROC constitution is revised and in particular the claim of sovereignty over the mainland is relinquished, Democracy, as embodied by the ROC, effectively admits defeat leaving Authoritarianism the sole remaining and victorious school of thought on government within the greater Chinese civilization.

It is with this in mind that I ask the secessionists to look at the greater picture when they approach the issue; while you may be content in having achieved democracy for yourselves, and clearly you believe in its merits for it is an accomplishment that makes you so proud, leave not the fate of your brethren across the strait in the hands of authoritarian rule for what may be another 2000 years of unquestioned authority. If Democracy has been good to you, then illuminate its merits for all under heaven; help not yourself but all humanity for after all divisions are put aside, we are all of the same blood and flesh. And for those who continue to wish for peaceful re-unification, the revolution lives on! The land has long been lost, but the debate is far from over and hope is not extinguished. When Qin Shih-Huang called for the burning of all Confucian texts and exterminated China’s Confucian scholars in favor of the Legalists and the Legalist school of thought, nothing could stop the Confucian ideals from resurfacing. And look how it did oh so completely! So I ask the sons and grandsons of the revolution to carry on the dream and never lose hope! for only then can we say that the blood, sweat and tears of our forefathers were shed for a cause and not shed in vain.

On Friday, October 13, 2006, the Pan-Blue Coalition of the Kuomintang (KMT) and People’s First Party (PFP) initiated a second recall vote of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) in the Legislative Yuan. The motion failed.

The Blues needed a 2/3 majority in the Legislative Yuan for the motion to pass but were only able to garner a slim majority. The Blues control slightly more than half of the legislature; the Pan-Green Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) control the other half. The DPP boycotted the recall, and the TSU cast invalid ballots in protest.

On the streets of Taipei, protests demanding the resignation of President Chen have been going on for months. When former DPP Chairman Shih Ming-teh (施明德) joined the protests in August, the movement gathered momentum, billing itself as a cross-coalition anti-corruption crusade. On this year’s National Day, Shih staged a “universal seige”* around the Presidential Office.

What happened in Taiwan that led to such drastic actions?

When DPP politician Chen Shui-bian was elected president in March 2000, it was a landmark event. The authoritarian KMT had become democratic and allowed for a peaceful transition of political power to another party. True democracy had finally come to the Republic of China on Taiwan (ROC). The people of the ROC had enough hope for their new governing party that Chen was reelected in a narrow election in March of 2004. Since then, however, Chen’s presidency has been dogged by a slowing economy, restrictions on trade with the Mainland that would restart the local economy, the stalling of peace talks between Mainland China and Taiwan, and, most recently, allegations of corruption. President Chen’s popularity has fallen tremendously, and even his most ferverent supporters have been crushed by disappointment.

Chen’s falling popularity and allegations of corruption gave the Blues an opportunity to remove Chen from office as “the right thing to do for the people of Taiwan,” although some may speculate that the Blues’ true motives were to get back at the Greens for having lost power to them. Protests against Chen from both Blues and Greens have erupted in the streets and are still continuing, demanding his resignation. So far, Chen has denied any wrongdoing and has refused to step down. Many DPP lawmakers, while frustrated with Chen have still rallied around him to protect their own party. The DPP has protested the Blue recall motions, saying that Chen has thus far only been accused and not indicted or found guilty. The DPP has also protested that the street protests were undemocratic, saying that forcing the president to step down through protests would be equivalent to mob rule. Furthermore, the polarity of Taiwanese politics has attracted a mostly Blue crowd to the protests who have booed away anti-corruption DPP and TSU lawmakers, making the protest no longer truly cross-coalition.

I agree with the DPP on this instance. Chen has not been charged with any crime, and while the people have a right to protest, using the protests to force the president to step down is undemocratic.

Compare the Blues’ demands for Chen to resign from the presidency over his alleged corruption to the suspension of Keelung mayor Hsu Tsai-li (許財利) from the KMT and but not from his mayoral office over his charged corruption. If the Blues want to be serious about being against corruption, the same standards should be applied to both Blues and Greens. Shih at least lashed out at the KMT and its chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) for not being just as harsh on his own party members as the KMT was being on Chen.

Since all people are innocent until proven guilty, no action should be taken to oust Chen unless he is found to be guilty, or if the judiciary rules Chen as innocent if the evidence provided can clearly show that Chen is guilty. The problem is, as President of the ROC on Taiwan, Chen has presidential immunity and cannot be investigated until the end of his term in 2008. The fact that Chen is unwilling to submit himself to any investigation makes his claims of innocence rather suspect. If he is as innocent as he says he is, then he should let himself be investigated and prove his innocence.

Since the failure of the most recent recall motion, Ma Ying-jeou has requested that the KMT hold off on any more recall motions until a judicial ruling is made. That is truly a fair and democratic practice. It’s a shame the recall motion wasn’t held off before, as the past two recall attempts have seriously hurt the KMT’s reputation as a now-democratic party. As for the PFP, I think their continuing calls to recall Chen without an indictment or judicial ruling are not helping the Blues at all. The PFP’s threats to end their alliance with the KMT for backing down from their campaign to oust Chen threatens to tear apart the Pan-Blue Coalition. If the Blues want to maintain their hold on the legislature and maintain their democratic legitimacy, the PFP needs to be reasonable instead of rabble-rousing and plunging Taiwanese politics further into chaos.

To me, the use of the corruption accusations to demand and shame Chen into stepping down through protests and legislative recalls are unnecessary. Chen is already tremendously unpopular, therefore, the people of the ROC should have the right to recall Chen themselves.

From the ROC constitution:

Chapter II, Article 16: The people shall have the right to present petitions, lodge complaints, and institute legal proceedings.

Chapter II, Article 17: The people shall have the rights of election, recall, initiative, and referendum.

Chapter XII, Article 133: A person duly elected may be recalled by his constituency [bold mine] in accordance with law.

Compare this with how the presidential recall drive is being done now in the Legislative Yuan:

• Legislative vote -> Popular vote -> Recall results

Personally, I think the way the recall is being done now is getting democracy backwards. While it’s true that many Taiwanese despise Chen and don’t have a problem with the legislators’ recall drive, this recall drive certainly looks more like a move by politicians for their own political gains instead of an action of genuine concern for the Taiwanese people. If the recall drive were truly to be a democratic process, the general public should be involved instead of the legislature.

The “California Solution”

On October 7, 2003, the people of the US state of California recalled Governor Gray Davis. Davis himself committed no crime other than being the leader of a state whose economy had stalled; he was just so unpopular with the people of California that the Californians had enough and removed him from office. How were the Californians able to do this?

For a recall election to happen in California, the people must circulate a petition within a certain time period that gathers signatures from registered voters. The minimum number of signatures required is 12% of the number of votes cast in the last statewide election (900,000).

If the Blues want to legitimately say that it is the will of the people to recall Chen, they need to circulate a petition in Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu. If that is done, the steps in recalling the president would then truly be the will of the people:

• Popular petition -> Popular recall election -> Recall results

The results of the popular election should be valid no matter the turnout in order to prevent a boycott at the polls. Of course, the problem is that the constitution has no stipulation on how many signatures need to be gathered in order to trigger a recall. Perhaps an amendment to make clear how many signatures must be gathered may require an amendment to the constitution. Such an amendment could be blocked by the DPP, but if the DPP blocks such a move they would be trampling on the constitutionally-guaranteed rights of the people to recall the president. A party that claims to be more democratic than the KMT should not obstruct a fair and democratic proposition if it doesn’t want to undermine its own democratic principles. As for the Blues, if they claim to be the vanguards of Chinese democracy now, then they need use democratic methods to remove the president if they feel he is unfit for the job.

References:
Constitution of the Republic of China
Amendments to the ROC Constitution

* “universal seige” in Mandarin is pronounced tian1 xia4 wei2 gong1, a homonym and pun on Sun Yat-sen’s slogan, “All under heaven for all.”

I think most people on this website knows Li Ao.   So I won’t explain his background.   Probably we’ll have a upcoming article about past “dangwai” people that have left the DPP, and the historical background of the “green” party.   Anyways Li Ao has announced he will run for election of taipei mayor race.  James Soong has also announced that he will run as well.   What will this mean for the pan-blue voters?  In my opinion not good.   Li Ao is good at making people look bad, but he has no administrative experience and offers no concrete plans.   But in many ways Li Ao understands the political landscape better than any other “blue” politician.   He is right in saying that Taipei more than any other city in Taiwan is neither blue or green but cares more about policy.   So that puts in question what are the policy differences between the blue and the green.   We already know that blue supports Republic of China, and the green supports creating a Republic of Taiwan.     I will try to make a list of the policy differences between pan-blue and the pan-green parties.   Please feel free to comment on this list

 pan-green:

• support independent taiwan
• claims to be more democratic because they fought for the democratization of Republic of China
• less economic and cultural ties with mainland
• against nuclear power generation
• for the defense spending bill
• environmentally more friendly

pan-blue

• support Republic of China
• seen as less democratic, has the baggage of dictorial rule of Chiang Kai-shek
• closer economic and cultural ties with mainland
• for nuclear power
• seen usually as having better administrative abilities
• against defense spending bill

So looking at the above list……………….it can be said that really the only thing in politics in taiwan is national identity, nothing else.    My feeling is that people are sick and tired of it.    Pan-blue needs to show a comprehensive agenda and sell it to the people in taiwan if they want to do well in the upcoming elections.

http://tw.news.yahoo.com/article/url/d/a/061015/2/5bs0.html

From The Associated Press:

Opposition lawmakers on Monday attacked suggestions from President Chen Shui-bian that Taiwan enshrine its separateness from rival China by enacting a new constitution — the second time he has raised the idea in less than a month…

In remarks on Sunday night honoring Koo Kuan-min, a staunch supporter of Taiwanese independence, Chen said the island should consider freezing its current constitution — which regards Taiwan and mainland China as a single country — and enact a new one reflecting Taiwan’s self-ruled status…

Instead of formally abandoning that constitution, Koo has proposed freezing the document temporarily, and then replacing it with a new legal framework embodying a “second republic” — a successor to the present Republic of China, which is Taiwan’s official name.

Chen’s proposal is utterly pointless. If the current Constitution is outdated, then there is already an adequate mechanism for it to amended, as has already been done over the course of the 1990s to reflect the status quo. Chen’s purpose here, which should be obvious, is to 1) deflect attention away from his low approval ratings and ongoing efforts to depose him and to 2) gradually implement Taiwan independence by severing legal continuity with the old mainland-based Republic of China. Aside from accomplishing nothing practical, a new constitution serves to decrease the symbolic legitimacy of the Republic of China. The current Constitution of the Republic of China predates the 1949 Communist Revolution. If the Constitution is replaced, then the Republic of China no longer represents the old order, but rather a secessionist entity that the People’s Republic of China will have plenty of justification to quash.

That said, this isn’t going to happen for the time being. Chen Shui-bian is unpopular and the pan-Blues control the legislature. The pan-Greens have no way to get this passed, except unilaterally and extra-legally, in which case there will be mass social disorder.