Chiang Kai-Shek Memorial Hall in Taipei

Photo Copyright: by Kevin Willet

Last Emperor of China and the Mandate of Heaven

Every media visit, every guided tour of Taiwan stars with a visit to Chiang Kai-Shek Memorial Hall in Taipei, As a temple dedicated to the Last god-emperor of China, it's deliberately modelled on the Temple of Heaven in Beijing's Forbidden City. It's the centrepiece of Chiang Kai-Shek Square, modelled on Tiananmen Square. It's meant to perpetuate the idea that Taiwan is the one true China and that Chiang Kai-shek and his KMT successors have the Mandate of Heaven.

The Democratic Progressive Party - during its eight-year interregnum (2000-2008) - re-branded Chiang Kai-Shek Memorial Hall as "Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall" It renamed Chiang Kai-Shek Square as "Liberty Square." It was meant put the country's dictatorial past behind and highlight the way to a democratic future.

But the KMT Old Guard were up in arms (literally) and the best the DPP could do was paper over the past... literally. When the KMT got back in office (they were never out of power) the first thing they did was reinstate CKS and his family (wife Soong Mei-ling and son Chiang Ching-kou) and as the unholy trinity.

Chiang Kai-Shek Memorial Hall now has a souvenir shop where you can buy the idols for your home shrine: Chiang Kai-Shek, Chiang Ching-kou, and Sun Yat-sen. Even Mao Tse-tung. Don't be surprised - the KMT has been in bed with the Chinese Communist Party since the KMT lost the presidential election in 2000.

Taiwan's Return to Dark Days? You be the Judge

By Stephen A Nelson
Asia Times Online
January 17, 2009

TORONTO, Canada - In a world rife with deadly terrorist strikes in India, anti-government riots in Thailand and civil wars in the Middle East, it may be hard for the rest of the world (even in Asia) to see Taiwan's struggle for democracy as anything more than a tempest in a China teapot. And certainly a worldwide economic crisis has eclipsed concerns for Taiwan's future as a separate state with de facto independence from China.

For many "China experts", last year's return to power of the old Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang or KMT) in Taiwan was seen as a return to peace, order and good government by Taiwan's natural governing party. The restoration of the ancient regime was largely hailed as a good thing in Beijing, Washington and the international community.

To them, KMT President Ma Ying-jeou has "the right stuff". And the new trade and transportation agreements with China are viewed as "one small step" for Taiwan but "a giant leap" for regional peace and prosperity - despite consternation from Japan.

Even the KMT government's raft of arrests, detentions and imprisonments of senior Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) officials - especially former president Chen Shui-bian - is seen as a campaign designed to root out corruption and bring evil-doers to justice.

But other Taiwanese and critics say that Ma and his inner circle of senior KMT officials - most of whom have close ties to China - have made too many concessions and have already surrendered Taiwan's sovereignty to Beijing.

The critics say that Chen's imprisonment - and the arrests of many other DPP officials in the past months - bears all the hallmarks of a political witch-hunt. To them, it looks like a KMT campaign meant to silence political opposition to its aggressive pro-China policy - and to settle old scores with Chen Shui-bian and the DPP.

According to the highly regarded Taiwan Communique, these concerns "arise from popular fear that Ma's government, which has allowed a reactionary KMT to set policy, is ready to turn the clock back to the martial law-era if it will advance its goals and please its negotiating partners in Beijing. In addition, there is popular discomfort over the egregious lack of accountability and transparency in the secretive party-to-party negotiations that Ma and Beijing are pursuing in contradiction of Taiwan's own laws and constitution."

This has resulted in an ongoing war of words in the international press between the KMT government and those concerned with human rights and democracy in Taiwan.

In November, a coalition of human-rights, judicial reform and social movement organizations - including the China Rights Network and Taiwanese Human Rights Association of Canada - accused the KMT of "pulling Taiwan's human rights standards down to the level of the People's Republic of China (PRC)”. In an open letter published in several newspapers, the coalition cited suppression of protests during the visits to Taiwan of Chinese officials. They also complained about the apparent persecution of Chen Shui-bian, his family, and other DPP officials.

Also in November, similar criticism came from a group of 20 leading American, Canadian and Australian experts on China and Taiwan - including Nat Bellocchi, Washington's former de facto ambassador to Taipei. The group said the recent acts by the KMT administration resembled "the unfair and unjust procedures practiced during the dark days of martial law".

In particular, the experts said that the persecution is obvious because "only DPP officials have been detained and given inhumane treatment such as handcuffing and lengthy questioning, while obvious cases of corruption by members of the KMT - including in the Legislative Yuan - are left untouched by the prosecutors or at best are stalled in the judicial process".

In their joint statement, the scholars and journalists complained that the KMT was using the judiciary - the legal system of prosecutors, investigators, judges and courts - to persecute political opponents.

"We also believe that the procedures followed by the prosecutor's offices are severely flawed: while one or two of the accused have been formally charged, the majority is being held incommunicado without being charged. This is a severe contravention of the writ of habeas corpus and a basic violation of due process, justice and the rule of law," the experts said.

And, they protested, "the prosecutor's offices evidently leak detrimental information to the press. This kind of 'trial by press' is a violation of the basic standards of judicial procedures. It also gives the distinct impression that the Kuomintang authorities are using the judicial system to get even with members of the former DPP government."

This prompted a counter offensive from the government, which has accused the petitioners of getting their facts wrong.

In two open letters - published in English and Chinese - Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng insisted that Taiwan is a country where rule of law pervades. She said that the arrests and detentions of Chen Shui-bian and others are legal and necessary to prevent them from colluding with co-conspirators, destroying evidence or fleeing the country.

In the first letter, Wang wrote, "We in the Ministry of Justice ... want to reassure those who are concerned about Taiwan, including those who wrote and signed the open letter, that there will be absolutely no erosion of justice in Taiwan, no matter who the accused is."

In the second letter, Wang insisted that the judiciary is acting independently from any political influence and stressed that President Ma Ying-jeou is not interfering with the legal process.

"Therefore, the allegation of prosecutorial bias against the DPP is entirely baseless," she said. "All of our prosecutors, without exception, are under the supervision of the prosecutor-general. There can be no doubt that our public prosecutors endeavor to prosecute crimes and protect the innocent while respecting due process."

But Taiwan watchers remain skeptical. Among them is Dean Karakelas, a Canadian journalist and political scientist who lived in Taiwan for eight years.

"Twice now, respected international scholars have signed an open letter pointing out bias in the actions of the ROC judiciary, and twice now the Justice Minister has responded defending the legality of its actions," said Karakelas.

"Let's be clear: it is not the legality that is being contested, but the morality. It is easy for a party that controls all five branches of government to make all its actions legal," he said. "But if the current ROC government wants foreign journalists to stop reporting on its unethical and undemocratic behavior, it is going to have to do more than point out how eminently legal these immoral persecutions are: it is going to have to behave responsibly, transparently and with respect for the principles of democracy."

And many familiar with Taiwan's realpolitik say that Wang Ching-feng's counter-offensive misses the point, because President Ma Ying-jeou is not pulling the strings - but his old guard KMT comrades are.

"I am very concerned about the judicial happenings," said Bruce Jacobs, director of the Taiwan Research Unit at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. "I'm not convinced this is being orchestrated by Ma. More likely, if it is being orchestrated, it is coming from [KMT chairman] Wu Poh-hsiung and [honorary KMT] chairman Lien Chan."

Others would add the name of another conservative force in the KMT: former governor of Taiwan province James Soong.

But if that's true, how would the KMT control the judiciary anyway?

"Taiwan has never had true transitional justice," said Jerome Keating, author of several books, including Taiwan: The Struggles of a Democracy. The KMT has always controlled the Legislative Yuan and through that the appointments to the Control Yuan [the body governing the judiciary]."

Keating said that during the Chen years, KMT legislators stifled the Control Yuan "allowing no appointments and thus paralyzing that body".

As a result, the vast majority of judges in Taiwan - especially senior judges - came up through the old political vetting process during the martial law era and is profoundly pro-KMT. In short, they were appointed by (and beholden to) the KMT.

Michael Turton, host of the highly regarded website The View From Taiwan, concurs. "Judges become judges by passing a fiendishly difficult exam which they devote all their time to, and they lack experience of the world and social and political maturity," he said.

If that's true, should the trials of Chen Shui-bian and others come as a surprise? And is Taiwan really returning to its dark days of martial law?

"Yes, I am surprised, but not totally," said Jacobs. "I would not phrase it [that way], as Taiwan has clearly not returned to the bad authoritarian past."

But, Jacobs noted: "The two institutions that have been slow to democratize are the judiciary (including the prosecutors) and the media."

Karakelas also disagrees with the idea that Taiwan is slipping back into a dark night of martial law. "Although the events taking place under Ma's watch are undeniably undemocratic, he is inadvertently doing the DPP a huge favor," he said.

What's more, Karakelas said, the anti-democratic moves of the KMT may spark the rebirth of a pro-Taiwan, pro-democracy DPP.

"By taking the steps he is taking, Ma's KMT is forcing the DPP back into its old role as rebellious, persecuted protest party," said Karakelas. "He's turning them back into guerrillas. [The DPP] was originally formed as a force to oppose the KMT's one-party rule ... and it lost its path when it took the reins of power. Ma is pushing the DPP back to a position in which it is comfortable, and where it operates best."

Karakelas is among those who point out that many in Taiwan voted for Ma Ying-jeou because Ma was supposed to represent a break with the KMT's past. Yet three prominent members of that martial-law era regime - former vice president Lien Chan, former governor James Soong and current KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung are part of Ma Ying-jeou's inner circle.

So what does this say about Ma's leadership and who's really running the country?

Karakelas and others say this demonstrates that either a) Ma is too weak to resist the temptation to wield his executive power in undemocratic ways, or b) that the KMT is still inherently incapable of operating in a democratic, multi-party system.

"Like it or not, Ma is engaged in a zero-sum game: rapprochement with China must inevitably be paid for by sacrificing some of the freedoms that Taiwanese people have fought hard for," said Karakelas.

Karakelas said that the real problem is not "how will Ma balance the loss of civil liberties on one side and closer relations with China on the other side"? The real problem is "at what point will Ma lose control of his balancing act"?

In fact, Karakelas said, "Ma isn't in control, even now, of the balancing act, and that what we're really accusing him of is failing to rein in the more conservative forces within the KMT that are running wild - both in terms of political persecutions at home and abroad making rogue deals with China."

Jacobs also seems think that Ma is not really in control - and that the KMT old guard is.

In an editorial in the Taipei Times last fall, Jacobs noted that "the KMT still remains unreformed, but party reform has become even more urgent".

In the editorial, Jacobs said, "The KMT center, and not the Democratic Progressive Party, has become the most important opposition to the Ma government." Jacobs cites open rebellion from KMT legislators, as well as harsh criticism of Ma appearing in pro-KMT newspapers - as well as on the KMT's own news website, KNN.

Jacobs went on to say that the only solution was for Ma to move out the old conservative men in the KMT and take the reins himself.

Jacobs concluded the editorial by saying, "Clearly, gaining control of the KMT is much more than a domestic matter. And it is vital to the maintenance of Taiwan's democratic health. President Ma, please act soon!"

In the meantime, former president Chen Shui-bian is back in jail until his trial. There he will stand accused by special prosecutors who have vowed to get results. And he will be tried by a KMT appointed and approved judge - Taipei District Court judge Tsai Shou-shun - that critics say has already made up his mind that Chen is guilty.

Or, as the English-language Taiwan News put it: "Besides being reminded of former KMT secretary general Hsu Shui-teh's famous admission that 'the courts belong to the KMT', the script being followed should be familiar to anyone who observed politics in Taiwan during the KMT's decades of authoritarian or one-party dominant rule. Namely, if the KMT loses based on the existing game rules, it ceases to follow the rules or rewrites the rule book."
On his website, Turton wrote that this turn of events makes it clear that the trial of Chen Shui-bian is a political persecution. "Even the dullest spectator can understand a kangaroo court," he says.

"It's ironic - a fair trial with competent judges and prosecutors would have almost certainly resulted in a conviction - but now that the KMT has removed judges it doesn't like and played havoc with the prosecution and the trial process, it has tainted any conviction obtained," Turton said.

So what then is the future of Taiwan's struggle for democracy?

For years, under Lee Tung-hui, and later Chen Shui-bian, Taiwan's government enjoyed a positive reflection in the international press, with the possible exception of Xinhua. "The nation's commitment to human rights, democracy, civil society and transparency were hailed as groundbreaking," said Karakelas.

"The current government of Ma Ying-jeou should not be surprised that this positive reputation is being soiled. It has been scrambling to silence the reporters and commentators that report on its undemocratic behavior. It should be aware that Western journalists are not as easily intimidated as those in Taiwan," he said.

But what about in Taiwan? What will be the fate of the democratic movement?

"It's been said that the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common,” said Li Sai Fung, a former radio broadcaster in Taipei. “Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views - which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering.”

For the KMT old guard, said Li, "Chen-Shui Bian and the DPP is one of the facts that needs altering."

Stephen A Nelson is a Canadian freelance journalist now based in Toronto but with one foot still in Taiwan. For eight years he worked as a journalist in Taiwan, including two years at the Taipei Times newspaper. He was also a broadcaster at Radio Taiwan International, where he produced Strait Talk, a weekly program about Taiwan and its place in the world. He welcomes professional enquiries.

Taiwan's President Ma Ying-jeou weathers typhoon fallout

By Stephen A. Nelson
Asia Times Online

TAIPEI - In what looked like a game of political lifeboat, Taiwan's premier Liu Chao-shiuan resigned late last week - after the government was heavily criticized for what media reports called a "slow, incompetent and uncaring response" to last month's Typhoon Morakot.

And in this game of lifeboat, there are those who say Liu jumped - and those who say he was pushed.

"Of course President Ma Ying-jeou wanted him to quit," said Li Wai, a television producer who supported Ma in the last election but who now has her doubts about the man many people have labelled "the Teflon president".

"Ma will not tell you what he wants - still he will expect you to do it," said Li.

Such criticisms are becoming more common in Taiwan, even in pro-Kuomintang (KMT) - the island's ruling party - media, in the aftermath of Typhoon Morakot.

Typhoons are a regular occurrence in Taiwan. And each year the country gets hit by several such tropical storms. People are usually prepared for the worst. But in the wake of last month's Typhoon Morakot, parts of southern Taiwan received more than three meters of rain - three times the average annual rainfall - in just three days. This was in areas of Taiwan already made landslide-prone by earthquakes, harmful irrigation practices and devastation of natural forests cut down to make way for cash crops such as betel nut trees.

The number of dead and missing is now put at more than 700, after landslides buried villages, destroyed bridges and wiped out roads - mainly in southern Taiwan, and largely in aboriginal communities.

When Liu announced his resignation on September 7, he told reporters that someone had to take political responsibility for the death and destruction. As the country's top administrator, he said, that someone had to be him.

Less than an hour after Liu's announcement of resignation, Ma announced he would be replaced with Wu Den-yih - secretary general of Kuomintang. Another KMT stalwart, Eric Chu, was named as the new vice premier.

When Liu resigned, he was expected to take his entire 42-member cabinet with him. And indeed, the cabinet did resign en masse. But by the time the new premier Wu Den-yih named his new cabinet on September 10, only a handful of ministers had been tossed out of the lifeboat. Most of the ministers who had resigned with Liu were back in the cabinet with Wu. Critical changes include:

Shi Yen-shiang, chairman of China Petroleum Corp, Taiwan's biggest oil company, was named the new economics minister. Tsai Hsung-hsiung, a minister without portfolio, took over from Chen Tain-jy as head of Taiwan's economic-planning council. Former Veteran's Affairs Commission director Kao Hua-chu, an experienced and highly regarded military leader, was named the new minister of national defense. Taiwan's representative to Indonesia and a former de facto ambassador to Australia, Timothy Yang, is the new foreign minister. Former minister of the interior, Liao Liou-yi, is the new secretary general of the Presidential Office. Former chairman of the Research, Development and valuation Commission, Jiang Yi-huah, is the new interior minister. Critical areas where there is no change included Finance Minister Lee Sush-der and Mainland Affairs Council chairwoman Lai Shin-yuan - both of whom were reappointed to their posts. In responding to the cabinet shuffle, most international media reports focused on what effect the moves would have on Taiwan's relations with China, rather than what difference they would make to the people in Taiwan and how they would affect them. Ma's game of lifeboat was seen as "a move that is unlikely to alter the administration's pro-China policy". And it was reported that "most analysts see no significant changes in President Ma Ying-jeou's foreign, economic or China policies emerging from the new cabinet". Western media reports noted, "Taiwan's leaders typically replace top officials in response to criticism of the government." They said that Ma's predecessor, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) leader Chen Shui-bian, "changed premiers six times in eight years, seldom causing alarm". Western media reports noted the reasons for the moves as Ma exercising damage control after what was seen as "his inability to take responsibility for a poor response to the emergency". Over the past few weeks, there has been considerable, pointed criticism in the press, especially over the typhoon's unusually high casualty rate. The critics argued that: The government had failed to order evacuations before the storm hit. People were not given enough warning to get out of the way of the mudslides. The government was not prepared, even though typhoons and mudslides are a regular occurrence in Taiwan. The government refused offers of aid from foreign countries because it didn't want to look like it was acting like a real country that was separate from China. When the aid did come, it was too little and too late - especially when compared to how quickly and easily Ma's government got aid to their "Chinese brothers" after the earthquakes in Sichuan province last year. Responding with "shock and awe" tactics, the KMT's solution has been to set up a commission - composed of central government officials and representatives of powerful corporations, without a single aboriginal member - to oversee the move of aboriginals off their ancestral lands and "voluntarily relocate" them to other, safer locations that are less prone to landslides. Most of all, Ma and the KMT have been unfeeling, uncaring and petulant toward southern Taiwan and the people - mostly ethnic Taiwanese and aboriginals - who lived there. Jerome Keating, author of Taiwan, the Struggles of a Democracy, said this came as no surprise from a president whom Keating claims had constantly passed the buck. "A week after the destruction of the typhoon with the yet to be realized response of Ma's government, Ma had resorted to the blame game. First it was the Central Weather Bureau's fault for not giving a strong enough warning to prepare for the typhoon. Then it was the local magistrate's fault for not solving the problem, despite the fact that they had had no budget from the central government. Then it was the people's fault for not getting out of the way of the floods," Keating said. "The people - in Ma's words - were not as 'fully prepared' as they should have been. In the end, it was just about everyone's fault except Ma's. After all, he is only the president," Keating said. Ma did visit the affected areas - although only after a delay; he did publicly apologize, and he has ordered a public investigation into what went wrong in preparing for the typhoon and in dealing with the disaster. Still, foreign media reports have certainly pointed out that in the cabinet reshuffle - and in letting Liu take the fall - there is both damage control and buck-passing. And while the cabinet change was expected, indeed demanded - does it really address the criticisms directed at the government - especially those directed at Ma? The consensus in the media and with political analysts seems to be "no" - and that it was never really meant to. It's really meant as medicine to ease upset Taiwanese stomachs and make them feel better, so that the government can get on with business. "Reshuffling won't deal with the problem," said Keating. "Wu is a good old boy, more of the same." Liu Bih-rong, a professor of political science at Soochow University, seemed to agree: "The people had a lot of pent-up anger over the response [to the typhoon]," he said. "Ma panicked and for a while he lost direction as he tried to do damage control. Now with the reshuffle and as people have calmed down, he can put it behind him and refocus on China and economic issues." Indeed, media reports noted "the change from Liu to Wu is unlikely to cause many major waves, as power in this country largely rests with the president rather than the premier". What the reshuffle will do, analysts said, is consolidate power with Ma. Wu and Chu are ranking KMT members, while Ma is ready to reclaim his crown as chairman of the KMT. The Taiwan News, for example, noted that both Wu and Chu "will surely be more decisive in crisis management or disaster response than their technocratic predecessors". But, the paper added, Wu and Chu are "also deeply linked with local KMT and financial factions". So while Ma is not all alone in the lifeboat, he is definitely more in command. But will the reshuffle help the KMT in local elections later this year? Maybe. Certainly the disastrous response to the typhoon seriously damaged the reputation of the good ship KMT, so throwing unpopular members overboard and taking on some new crew members can't hurt. Keating is among those who thinks that much will depend on the ability of the opposition DPP to exploit this weak link in the KMT's chain. But, observers note, elections in Taiwan tend to be won in two places: in the media and on the ground with local community organizations. And, the KMT has many friends in the media. Also, in many cities and towns, the KMT has more ground troops and is better organized than the DPP. Even where it does not have more local troops (in southern Taiwan, for example) the KMT - as one of the richest political parties in the world - has a much bigger war chest. But will the reshuffle, as some experts have already suggested, help Ma in his bid for re-election in 2012? Maybe not. As noted earlier, even some KMT-owned media have been openly critical of Ma. And foreign media seem far less enchanted with someone they practically fawned over just 18 months ago. In an article on the East Asia Forum web site, J Bruce Jacobs, director of the Taiwan Research Unit at Monash University in Melbourne, summed up the reaction this way, "In many ways, Hurricane Katrina destroyed the presidency of George W Bush. Quite possibly, Typhoon Morakot will destroy the presidency of Ma Ying-jeou." Li Wai put it another way, "Before he became president, we expected - we hoped - that Ma Ying-jeou would be a good president," she said. "Now we know he is not." Li Fong-yi, a Taipei office worker who voted for Ma last time, was less gracious: "Actually, we knew Ma Ying-jeou would not be a good president, but we had no choice," she said. "Frank Hsieh [Ma Ying-jeou's DPP opponent] came with too much baggage from the DPP." Stephen A Nelson is a Canadian freelance journalist now based in Toronto but with one foot still in Taiwan. For eight years he worked as a journalist in Taiwan, including at the Taipei Times newspaper and at Radio Taiwan International, where he produced Strait Talk - a weekly program about Taiwan and its place in the world.

The Struggle for Democracy: The 2004 Presidential Election

At a temple in Tainan County, a banner welcomes native son Chen Shui-bian home after his successful bid for re-election in 2004.

Adapted from CBC News Viewpoint
March 22, 2004

It's all over but the crying. The presidential election in Taiwan is finished, the votes have been counted, and – unless Taiwan's high court rules otherwise – Chen Shui-bian, of the independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), will be sworn in for a second term in May.

In winning a second term, Chen and his vice-president, Annette Lu, have defeated the pro-unification forces of Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang, or KMT) leader Lien Chan and his running mate, James Soong.

Even before the failed assassination attempt on the lives of Chen and Lu, this closely fought battle had grabbed the world's attention because of one key issue: Taiwan's relationship with China. Now both the Taiwanese and the outside world are asking, "How will Chen's re-election affect that relationship?"

But to honestly answer that question, you first have to ask, "What was the relationship like before the election?"

The standard line is that Taiwan and China split in 1949 after a civil war in China, when Chiang Kai-shek's KMT forces lost to Mao Zedong's Communist forces. Mao formed the People's Republic of China (PRC) on the mainland, while Taiwan and it's surrounding islands became the last bastion of the KMT's Republic of China (ROC). Today, Beijing insists that the two entities on either side of the Taiwan Strait are part of "one China" that must be reunified – by force if necessary.

The reality is a little more complicated.

But it's enough to say that Taiwan has not always been part of China, and it has never been part of the PRC. For many years the KMT government seemed to have a "mutual understanding" with Beijing that kept the two sides at peace and allowed Taiwan to act as a sovereign state: an agreement in principle that there was one China, of which both Taiwan and the mainland were a part. In the KMT's mythology, this is what has become known as “the 1992 Consensus."

Conventional wisdom has it that the relationship has cooled considerably since Chen the sovereigntist took office in the year 2000. But conventional wisdom can be like an old wives' tale: just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.

It's true that Taiwan and China have not had any of the unofficial talks that took place during the KMT's reign – the kind of "family meetings" that allowed China and Taiwan to live in peace even if they couldn't agree on living together. And it's also true that Chen has alarmed, frustrated and angered Beijing by declaring that Taiwan already is a sovereign nation and therefore has no need for a "declaration of independence."

But it must be noted that the cooling trend began long before Chen and the DPP took office in 2000. The relationship reached a nadir in 1999 – almost a year before Chen took office – when former KMT president Lee Tung-hui stated that Taiwan and China enjoyed a "special state-to-state relationship."

Beijing leaders responded to that pronouncement with bile and venom. They condemned Lee as a "separatist," suspended all discussions with Taipei, and again raised the spectre of a war to “reunify” Taiwan with the motherland. And they have done the same again with Chen Shui-bian.

Shortly after becoming president, Chen did offer olive branches to Beijing; but all his overtures were either flatly refused or ignored. Beijing and the pro-unification forces in Taiwan blame Chen for not recognizing the "one China" principle. Chen and the pro-sovereignty forces blame Beijing for refusing to treat Taiwan as an equal partner in any discussions.

In the past four years, there has been a lot of finger-wagging and showing of teeth from Beijing, but not as much sabre-rattling as in the past. And despite his provocative talk of sovereignty, Chen has shown himself to be a skilled political realist who knows how to push China's buttons without going too far.

So, while things have not improved under Chen's tenure, they're not really any worse.

Both sides hoped this election would be a watershed. Chen wanted a mandate for changes that would solidify Taiwan's identity as a separate and sovereign nation. Beijing on other hand, wanted rid of Chen and supported KMT Leader Lien Chan so that both sides could get back to talking about one China.

In this election, neither side got what it really wanted. Chen got re-elected by pushing the sovereignty issue, but with no real mandate for the kind of radical changes that independence would imply. And China must face the fact that the Taiwanese people have again chosen Chen and wish to be "maitres chez nous."

So the question now becomes, "What will the two sides do differently – what must they do differently – this time?"

The answer to the first part of that question is that nobody really knows.

The optimistic view, the hopeful view, is that Chen's election to a second term changes everything. Another man, backed by powerful business interests, might have made a deal with China that would have traded Taiwan's sovereignty for peace and prosperity. But this one will not, so China will realize it must now get over its distaste for separatists and deal with Chen.

Chen, having barely won an election he was supposed to lose, will reach out confidently and peacefully to China. He will make new overtures that Beijing – acting in enlightened self-interest – will respond to, so that growing economic ties between the two countries can proceed and both sides can continue to prosper in peace.

The skeptical view, some would say the realistic view, is that the election in Taiwan changes nothing. Beijing's policy toward Taiwan comes from decisions made inside the world of Chinese politics. There are both hawks and doves in Beijing, but the wind beneath their wings is the same: unification with Taiwan. There is not that much a president of Taiwan – especially an independence-minded president like Chen – can do about that.

Proponents of both views agree on the answer to the second part of the question: Chen now has the responsibility of making it easier for the "doves" in China to succeed. In other words, maybe he can't make Beijing change its mind and he can't make the leaders talk – but he can and must make them willing and able to talk.

That means toning down the independence rhetoric that makes the hawks want to pounce. It also means giving the doves some face, so that it doesn't look like they're giving up on the "one China" principle if they meet with Chen. Then and only then can any progress be made on key issues such as trade between the two countries.

Can any president do this and still make the Taiwanese feel that they are "maitres chez nous"?

If anybody can, Chen can. In the last four years, and again in this election campaign, he has proven himself to be a skilled political realist as well as a charismatic leader. But more importantly Chen – as the assassination attempt showed – is a survivor. He can take a bullet for the team and still come out alive.

Stephen A. Nelson is a Canadian freelance writer and broadcaster now living in Toronto.

BACKGROUND:
In 2000, two bitter rivals from the Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomingtang or KMT) — Lien Chan and James Soong – had fought each other to become the KMT's presidential candidate. When Soong failed to get what he considered to be his by right, he split from the KMT – taking his supporters with him. The KMT, in turn, kicked him out of the party and said the same would happen for any of his supporters.

The very public and nasty split in the party resulted in the vote being split.

The “outcast” James Soong placed a close second in the election and nearly won.

The “chosen one” Lien Chan placed a very distant third.

The winner of the election was the dark horse: Chen Shui-bian, a former democracy-rights lawyer from the independence-minded Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).

Vowing never to let the separatist Chen win again, Lien Chan and James Soong buried the hatchet long enough to run a joint campaign against Chen in 2004. After an extremely acrimonious election campaign, Chen won again – this time by a razor thin margin in the popular vote.

The victory came just one day after an apparent assassination attempt on the lives of Chen and his running mate, Vice President Annette Lu. Chen and Lu were both wounded by bullets fired at them while they were travelling in an open motorcade.

On election night, Lien, Soong and their supporters rallied in streets of Taipei. They charged that the election had been stolen, the voting had been rigged, and that Chen had faked his own assassination attempt.

Lien and Soong vowed never to accept the results. They led a month-long series of protests designed to produce a "people power" coup. At the same time, they challenged the election results in the courts.

When this story was written – just days after the election, their case was still before the courts. Of course, the courts threw out the challenges, saying there was no evidence to support their accusations.

That didn't stop Lien, Soong and their supporters from orchestrating a campaign to depose Chien Shui-bian, calling on him to "step down." It's a campaign that lasted until the 2008 presidential election campaign won by the KMT's Ma Ying-jeou. It's a campaign Ma won with the help and support of Lien and Soong.

But now that Chen has actually "stepped down" at the end of his term, the accusation that he staged an assassination attempt on his own life continues to be an albatross that the KMT hangs around his neck.

Will the real Ma Ying-jeou please stand up?

Adapted from
Asia Times Online
March 27, 2008

For years, the Kuomintang's (KMT) Ma Ying-jeou has been considered an heir to the presidency of Taiwan. Now that it has come true, and with a trail of contradictory campaign promises in his wake, the nation is left to decipher what kind of leader Ma will become. He already has some telling nicknames, among them "Mr Clean", "Mr Teflon" and "Mr Promises, Platitudes and Pablum."

In 2006, then-KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (right) was front and centre at a rally in Taipei calling on the Democratic Progressive Party's President Chen Shui-bian to step down. To the left of Ma is James Soong, a former governor of Taiwan. Soong split from the KMT in the year 2000 in order to run his own presidential campaign against KMT rival Lien Chan. But for the 2008 presidential election, Soong had rejoined the KMT's old guard to support Ma's presidential bid.

TAIPEI - Since the day when Ma Ying-jeou was chosen as the chairman of the Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang or KMT) he was hailed as "a shoo-in" to win the presidential election. Even before he had declared any intention to do so, it seemed like the press had already decided that Ma had received the Mandate of Heaven and that he was pre-ordained to be the new emperor of the "Republic of China on Taiwan."

Now that that prophecy has been fulfilled at the weekend's presidential elections, the people of Taiwan - whether they call themselves Taiwanese, Chinese or aboriginal - will have two months to think about what kind of president they will get when former chairman Ma ascends to the throne.

That's because, despite the KMT's efforts (with the help of local and foreign news media) to paint Ma as a reliable, professional politician, in the last two years we have been given glimpses of the very different faces of Ma Ying-jeou. It seems that on almost every issue, every concern, Ma has at least two faces.

The foreign news media, following the lead of Taiwan's clearly pro-KMT press, have called Ma "Mr Clean" because of his efforts - while as Justice Minister in 1980s - to clean up corruption in the KMT. And even his fans have called him "Mr Teflon" because none of the accusations and charges against him ever seems to stick.

On the other hand, critics like historian Jerome Keating (author of several books on Taiwan, including Taiwan, the Struggles of a Democracy) call Ma "Mr Promises, Platitudes and Pablum" who "basks in his pseudo Mr Clean image and does his best to weasel out of any responsibility for his failings. For him, promises and platitudes are the answer for all, and the general public unfortunately is too naive to see through it."

The light in which the many faces of Ma seem most obvious is on the one issue that colors all of Taiwan's politics - the one issue that those outside Taiwan always focus on: the issue of unification with China.

Certainly this is the one thing China cares about. And ever since the democracy movement began in Taiwan, it has been the defining issue that separates "pan-green" parties like the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) (pro-independence, pro-Taiwan) from "pan-blue" parties like the KMT (pro-unification, pro-China.)

Shortly after becoming KMT chairman in mid-2005, Ma told the Associated Press that - if he became president - he would do "everything in his power" to "re-unify" Taiwan with China.

He was strongly critical of efforts by President Chen Shui-bian to "suspend" the already dormant National Unification Council and the National Unification Guidelines - drawn up by the KMT - that laid out exactly how the Taiwan should go about "re-unifying" with China.

But even as outgoing KMT chairman Lien Chan was cozying up to Beijing, and promising "One China", Ma sensed that the ground in Taiwan was shifting.

Coups - even "soft" coups and "people power" coups - were not going to win the day any more. Assassination attempts could backfire. The KMT had to accept that democracy was the battleground for getting and keeping power. And it had to accept that - on that battleground - elections were the rules of engagement. To win those elections, you needed the support of the people, including those people who increasingly were for the "status quo" of de facto independence or even those that were for formal, de jure independence.

So Ma and the KMT took out newspaper ads spelling out what they saw as the three options for Taiwan: unification, independence, status quo - suggesting that they were open to any or all of those options. When the KMT old guard gave him flak for that, Ma explained that what he meant was "independence is an option for Taiwan, but not for the KMT."

During this election, Ma changed again.

Ma was clearly the favorite in Beijing, who expected that a victorious Ma would make good on KMT promises to move forward on the unification issue.

But in a Taiwan where the people increasingly see themselves as being Taiwanese, not Chinese, being Beijing's first choice is not a good way to win the hearts and minds of the people. And certainly the protests and violent crackdowns in Tibet were seen as a cautionary tale for anyone who thought unification with China was a good idea.

So Ma went to great pains to distance himself both from Beijing, Lien Chan's promises to China, and his own promises to "do everything in [his] power" to unify Taiwan with China.

In the last days of the campaign he repeated his "Three Nos" - "no unification, no independence, no war."

Keating says that "Ma has promised everything and anything", hoping that he will hit something.

So if Ma keeps changing on this most fundamental issue, which Ma will the country get when he is sworn in as president on May 20?

Ma the Chinese nationalist dedicated to unification? Or Ma the Taiwanese democrat who will listen to the will of the people? What are we to think of Ma Ying-jeou?

On this, Keating is clear: "On my better days I call him a pretentious weasel ... At other times I have called him a chameleon on a weather vane, or a windsock; his position keeps changing depending on who he is talking to," Keating says.

"I can't keep up with him."

Stephen A Nelson is a Canadian freelance journalist now based in Toronto but with one foot still in Taiwan. For eight years he worked as a journalist in Taiwan, including two years at the Taipei Times newspaper. He was also a broadcaster at Radio Taiwan International, where he produced Strait Talk - a weekly program about Taiwan and it's place in the world.