Kaohsiung poll on July 19, 2004

Lessons from the Kaohsiung poll

The results of the Kaohsiung City Council by-elections were announced on Saturday evening. The poll has been called a prelude to, and a benchmark for, the year-end legislative elections. Of the four parties contesting the elections, the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) was the biggest winner, while the People First Party (PFP), with not a single candidate elected, was the biggest loser. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) won the same number of seats.

Looking at the new composition of the City Council, the green camp now holds a clear majority. Factoring in pro-DPP independent councilors, the green camp now controls at least 23 of 44 council seats. This change from the pre-election composition will allow the Kaohsiung City Government, led by Mayor Frank Hsieh of the DPP, to dismiss resistance from the opposition and build a more constructive city administration.

That is not all. A more significant effect of the port city's by-election will be its impact on the year-end legislative elections. When voting day comes, the Kaohsiung poll will be a good reference indicator for people at the polls. It will also be encouraging for the alliance between the DPP and the TSU, strengthening the government's confidence in gaining a majority in the legislature. The outcome of the by-elections is further evidence that a Taiwan identity is taking shape at the grassroots level of Taiwanese society, and that this identification is growing stronger. Compared to the pan-blue camp's out dated identification with China, the green camp's identification with Taiwan has already become an unstoppable force.

Small electoral districts in the city combined with good inter-party networking played an important role in the pan-green victory in Kaohsiung. Voters with a strong Taiwan consciousness voted for the TSU, but not at the expense of the DPP, which also strengthened its supporter base. Many voters with less awareness of have become a part of the DPP's support network, and this helped contribute to the DPP-TSU victory.

The expansion of the green camp is in marked contrast to the pan-blue camp's decline. The PFP's drastic failure to win voter support is a wake-up call. The party's radical and irrational actions after the presidential election caused resentment among many voters, and even scared away many undecided voters who were once in favor of PFP candidates.

As a result of their actions, voters now realize the PFP opposes identifying with Taiwan. Thus it would not be a surprise if the PFP is once again spurned by voters in the year-end legislative elections.

Moreover, three of the nine candidates with ties to "vote-buying families" triumphed in the by-election. It is obvious that local grassroots forces and the deeply rooted vote-buying culture still have not been eradicated. There was a curious result to this issue. Among the candidates of vote-buying families, all pan-green candidates lost the election, while pan-blue candidates did exceptionally well. This implies that pan-blue voters generally tolerate political corruption, while pan-green voters, on the contrary, reject it.

It has been said that "politics is the concrete reflection of local culture." Taiwan's political culture cannot be expected to improve overnight, but the by-election results are evidence that Taiwan's democracy is advancing steadily.

The outcome of the Kaohsiung City Council by-election represents a good start for the DPP administration's second term, and it is probable it will influence the year-end legislative elections. A legislature where the governing party holds a minority is undoubtedly the greatest obstacle to an efficient government. We have already endured four years of this scenario, where passing legislation was nearly impossible. Hopefully the year-end legislative elections will bring an end to this nightmare. That is the only way for Taiwan to continue to prosper and develop.

Singapore's inclusiveness

As a Singaporean, I applaud the recent "unofficial" visit to Taiwan by Singapore Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to see his personal friends ("Singaporean ties boosted," Wednesday, July 14, 2004, Page 1).

However, I was taken aback by China's reaction to Lee's "unofficial and private" trip to Taiwan. For whatever reason, the Chinese authorities came to conclude that such a private visit denotes that Singapore was no longer adhering to the "one China" policy. In my personal opinion, that conclusion is as absurd, as is the threat that "Singapore will have to bear all the consequences of the visit."

First of all, China has to recognize that like itself, Singapore is a sovereign country. As tiny as the island of Singapore may be, surely Singaporean leaders and citizens are free to visit any country on social visits or for holidays. The Chinese authorities should also realize that threats of "consequences" will only lead to problems instead of solutions. China's foreign ministry spokesman said: "Lee Hsien Loong has been in the upper echelons of the Singaporean government for many years. Hence his status does not change during an "unofficial and private visit."

Regardless of who visits Taipei, Chinese authorities ought to accept the reality that politicians in Taiwan do have personal friends. The key issue here is that these friends are not accorded the usual official diplomatic or red-carpet treatment, which is usually reserved for the leaders of Taiwan's official diplomatic allies. China must not read too deeply into such visits from leaders from other countries, whether it is by a former vice president of the US or the future prime minister of Singapore. In view of the global challenges facing us today, be it in the fight against terrorism or economic and trade issues, all countries have to tailor their policies and priorities according to their best interests. And Singapore is no different.

Singaporeans and Chinese people have to accept the reality that Singapore's strong and firm relationship with China does not insinuate that we should cease to maintain friendships with other countries. China may well argue that Taiwan is part of China, but Lee has never declared or acknowledged Taiwan as being independent. Where then is the basis to claim that the private visit constitutes a "serious violation of the Singaporean government's commitment to the `one China' policy?"

Personally, I believe it is due time for one of Singapore's senior leaders to visit Taiwan, even if it is on a private visit. As it is, Singapore has military personnel training in Taiwan and also has a trade representative office in Taipei. Just as Singapore has much to gain from the various exchanges with China, I am certain that a similar approach with the Taiwanese would serve us well. I visited Taipei in May, almost eight years after my previous visit. I am amazed at how much the Taiwanese society has improved. During his visit, Lee also met older-generation politicians such as KMT Chairman Lien Chan and politicians of the younger generation, such as President Chen Shui-bian, Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou and the up-and-coming Su Tseng-chang. Perhaps China might be worried that a firm Singapore-Taiwan relationship would result in a scenario where Singapore loses focus and priority on Sino-Singapore relations. China should be reassured that the city-state has different objectives in its relationships with both China and Taiwan.

China has to accept both the reality that a firm Sino-Singapore relationship can co-exist simultaneously with a relationship between Taiwan and Singapore, and also that Singapore has the right to pursue its own courses and policies on the international stage.Lee's "private" visit is surely an indication of the deep respect we hold for the "One China" principle.

Jason Lee Boon Hong   Singapore

Who is China fooling?

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) does not know the difference between what it calls the "hypocrisy" of the imperfect Western democratic system and its own perfectly evil totalitarian system ("China snorts at Western concern for human rights," July 16, page 1).

China does not seem to understand that Western democratic laws are a contract between the government and its people, and more or less agreed to by the people they govern. Chinese laws, on the other hand, are dictated by the CCP. The checks and balances on power, which are emphasized in Western democracies, are non existent in China.

China enjoys the privilege of membership on the UN Security Council but does not want to be bound by its international human rights conventions. Sure, China does not need lessons from its Western "friends." It is not that China doesn't know the rules, it is that China willfully intends to break them.

Their own repressive laws are a "domestic affair," not like wife-beating used to be called a "domestic" affair in the West.

It's as though China doesn't know it is now the 21st century, and human rights abuses cannot be excused away as a domestic affair anymore. China's overall interests, as determined by the government, takes precedence over the freedom of Hong Kong, Tibet, East Turkestan and for that matter, every town and city in China.

One can't help but wonder, whose interests do the CCP serve? Who is sacrificing for whom? The Chinese government doesn't seem to know the answer to these questions, but the rest of the world knows.

Chen Ming-chung   Chicago, Illinois