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
|