By June Tsai
In a Dec. 30 interview with Taiwan Today, former Vice President Annette Lu spoke on a variety of issues, including Taiwan’s policy toward mainland China and how the opposition Democratic Progressive Party should choose its 2012 presidential candidate.
Q: Do you agree with the view that the Nov. 27 elections can be seen as a broad assessment of President Ma Ying-jeou’s policies?
A: I do not agree with the view that the election results are a reflection of what the electorate thinks about President Ma’s economic or cross-strait policies.
The KMT had a huge win in Taipei City, just as the DPP won by a landslide in Kaohsiung City. But neither victory was really related to the policies of the current administration.
What was important was the two NT$10-billion (US$312-million) events. I mean the Flora Expo in Taipei, and the World Games in Kaohsiung.
These events were what made the difference. A clear proof of this is that just a few months before the election, incumbent Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin’s governing competence was put to a grave test over the Xinsheng Overpass reconstruction project scandal [in which several high-ranking city officials were allegedly involved in financial improprieties]. The opening of the Flora Expo Nov. 4 helped Hau’s shaky image, and he won out in the election three weeks thereafter.
In Kaohsiung, though the World Games took place one year ago and were not coordinated to take place around election time, their success helped make incumbent Mayor Chen Chu more popular.
Both the World Games and the Flora Expo can be considered international events. They fit in with the wish of the Taiwanese people to become a part of the world. That’s what helped the mayors win their re-elections, if you ask me.
By the way, I don’t think the shooting that injured Sean Lien [the son of KMT Honorary Chairman Lien Chan] really had an effect on the elections, either.
The shooting might have been a catalyst for what I call “centrist nonvoters.” Such voters usually don’t bother going to ballot boxes because they don’t think their votes will make a difference. But the incident brought out these lukewarm supporters.
I would say the shooting might have benefited the KMT in the north and the DPP in the south. But overall, I don’t think it had an influence on the elections, except perhaps in Taichung City [where the margin of victory was 2.24 percent].
However, I strongly believe that learning the truth is very important. I have suggested to the DPP legislative caucus that it propose a bill [which has been referred to party-to-party negotiation] to set up a national-level committee and investigate both this incident and the March 19, 2004 shooting incident [in which former President Chen Shui-bian and Lu, then presidential and vice-presidential candidates, were injured] to find out the truth.
Such cases, if unsolved, only give rise to more speculation and mistrust in society. The 2004 shooting case has not been closed. In the latest case, the gunman was caught on the spot, there were plenty of witnesses, and evidence in the form of a gun. But as of yet the results of the criminal investigation have still not been made public.
Criminal cases involving politics in Taiwan tend to remain unresolved. This is very bad for a new democracy.
But to return to our topic. At first glance, the political landscape in Taiwan has not changed too much after the election. But the total ballot counts of previous major elections tell another story.
I would say the DPP won 100,000 more votes than the KMT, not the official figure of 400,000. This is because there was a three-way race in Kaohsiung City, involving the DPP, the KMT, and former Kaohsiung County Magistrate Yang Chiu-hsin, who ran as an independent.
In the end, Yang received 410,000 votes. But if he had not run, 300,000 of the votes he won would probably have gone to the KMT candidate. I have consulted with former Magistrate Yang on this matter. He said he agreed with my observation.
Now let me remind you that in the 2008 presidential election, the KMT candidate won 2.1 million more votes than the DPP nominee. In the 2009 elections for chiefs of the country’s 17 cities and counties, the DPP caught up with the KMT by losing only about 110,000 votes in total. This year, the results have been reversed, with the DPP beating the KMT by the same number of votes.
A more significant result is the DPP made huge progress in the city councilor elections. It actually won more seats in total than the KMT. Also, for the first time in history DPP councilors have been elected to deputy speaker positions—though they still have not captured the speakership role—in Taipei and Kaohsiung cities. In Tainan, the city council’s speaker and deputy speaker are both DPP members.
I think that is one reason foreign observers advised paying attention to the possibility of a DPP comeback. The opposition party really does have a chance to become the ruling party again in 2012, provided it follows the right course and performs well in the 2011 legislative elections.
Q: After the election, many observers, domestic as well as foreign, are expecting the DPP to overhaul its platform toward mainland China. DPP Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen has announced the establishment of a think tank to help create a “peaceful and stable framework for interacting with China” and the rest of the world. What is your take on this?
A: I urge the public and all DPP members to read again the party’s carefully written resolutions published over the past two decades. These resolutions became part of the party’s platform, and have remained very consistent over the years.
The first resolution is the “Taiwan Independence Clause” of 1991. Then there is the “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future” of 1999, the “Creating a New Situation for Taiwan’s Economic Resolution” of 2001 and the “Multiple Ethnic Groups, United Country Resolution” of 2004. Finally, there is also the “Normal Country Resolution” of 2009.
The 1999 resolution was made public ahead of the 2000 presidential election. In Part II it states, “Taiwan is an independent and sovereign country and change to the ‘status quo’ of independence should require the approval of the people of Taiwan in a national referendum.” It also says that Taiwan does not belong to the People’s Republic of China, and that the country should reject the “one-China” principle so that the global community will not feel confused as to Taiwan’s position.
Article 7 says, “Taiwan and China should conduct across-the-board dialogue to reach a deeper understanding of one another, create mutual economic benefits, and establish a framework on which to build long-term stability and peace between the two sides.”
The 2001 resolution puts emphasis on the economy, stating that the DPP as the ruling party should proceed to “incorporate China’s market and resources as part of Taiwan’s global strategy for trade and economic development” on the basis of the 1999 resolution.
Some have accused the DPP of not having a China policy. This perception is biased. The DPP was in power between 2000 and 2008, and its China policy was implemented consistently. In dealing with China, the DPP government followed the model of “proactive opening and effective management,” as stated in the 2001 resolution.
Chairwoman Tsai was then Minister of the Mainland Affairs Council and many policies of opening to China in terms of trade went into effect under her directorship. Unlike the Ma administration now, the DPP government was proceeding on a principled basis.
The media may be expecting certain moves from politicians, such as Tsai leading a DPP delegation to visit China. But didn’t Lien Chan make a “historic” visit to China on behalf of the KMT in 2005 after losing the presidential election? What has been brought about? Party-to-party dealings have replaced nation-to-nation engagement. The KMT needs to be watched over, so does the DPP, and the general public has to play the watchdog.
Q: You have been proposing a “1996 Consensus” as the foundation for Taiwan to engage the world. What is the main idea behind it?
A: On March 23, 1996, Taiwanese citizens cast ballots to elect their president for the first time in history. Only citizens of an independent and sovereign country have such a privilege. Prior to the elections, the People’s Liberation Army conducted a series of missile tests targeting Taiwan. The PLA even lobbed four missiles into ROC territorial waters, in an attempt to intimidate the electorate.
In response, the US sent two carrier battle groups led by the USS Nimitz and Independence to waters near Taiwan in defense of a people freely exercising their political rights. The election went on smoothly, and in accordance with the law. Such an election should be used as proof of our sovereignty.
Since 1996, presidential elections have been held consistently and freely in Taiwan. Each election is a reconfirmation of our sovereignty. We can thus claim Taiwan is, de facto and de jure, a sovereign country, and we must say this to ourselves and to the world.
With everyone acknowledging what already happened in 1996, which is a fact, a consensus will be formed. With such a consensus Taiwan can reposition itself in the world and toward China.
On the basis of this 1996 consensus, China is not our enemy, as was declared by former presidents Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo. Nor is it a nation that we should kowtow to. Instead, the two countries should be like neighbors and relatives, and engage with each other on an equal basis. China will have to change its attitude toward Taiwan, and Taiwan must try to persuade people on the mainland that it is not a part of China.
Taiwanese have shaken off their identity as a people who have always been colonized, suppressed, divided and manipulated. We are now a nation with confidence and dignity. Look at today’s young Taiwanese, their fine qualities, their outstanding performances in international tournaments, the patriotism they have shown!
Second, the country must work harder to cultivate a new worldview among its people, by educating Taiwanese to become citizens of the world and deepening their global perspective and connection with international society.
Our China policy cannot be one that is ingratiating, provocative, or made out of fear. Such a policy would lead to a type of interaction that can really benefit both sides.
Q: As someone who was involved in the historically important 1979 Kaohsiung Incident, and as a leading member of the DPP, who has served as vice president twice, what are your expectations for the DPP? What are your future career plans?
A: What is good for Taiwan is good for me. History is always moving forward, and I think the time for the Kaohsiung Incident generation has already gone. It’s time for us to pass down our experience to the younger generation within the DPP. Party members are now discussing how they should go about choosing the party’s 2012 presidential candidate. I would like to remind everyone how the DPP chose its first presidential candidate in 1995.
At the time, 49 public debates were held throughout Taiwan—two in each of Taiwan’s 25 cities and counties, with only one cancelled due to a typhoon. In those debates candidates talked about their beliefs and platforms. Following each debate party members voted to select the one they thought was best for the party. Both party members and candidates were serious about the debates and there was no political showmanship.
I think the DPP should follow that good example. When continued over a period of time, debates can expose problems, set the agenda, and make voters understand what their potential national leader has in mind for the country.
I think the worst thing about the five special municipality elections was that there was more political showmanship than debate from candidates of both parties during election campaigns. Merging and upgrading the cities and counties into special municipalities could create many problems. More debates should have been held.
An edited version of this article appeared in online Taiwan Today Jan. 14, 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment