1. Taiwan’s Politics: A Look at the 2008 Presidential Election
Nicki Dabney
Taiwan’s recent political activity has caused mainlander Chinese to question the
benefits of democracy, and rightly so. For over a year the media has covered the
corruption scandal involving Chen Shui-bian, the current President of Taiwan and
leader of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), and embezzlement of government
funds, and it seemed that Ma Ying-jeou would win an easy victory for the
Kuomintang (KMT) in the 2008 election. Now with the election fast approaching, it
is unclear who will take Chen’s place.
The upcoming Taiwan election is especially important as it could mark Taiwan’s
transition to a consolidated democracy for Taiwan, which would be made official
according to Samuel Huntington if it passed his two-turnover test. In order for that to
occur, leadership would have to peacefully transfer from the hands of DPP, the
incumbent party, to the KMT, the opposing party. The first turnover took place in
2000 when the DDP’s Chen Shui-bian won the presidential election. Should the KMT
win the upcoming election, leadership would pass to the opposition party for the
second time. Taiwan’s establishment as a consolidated democracy is important
because it moves beyond the simple electoral democratic standards brought about
through elections during a transition, and demonstrates institutional strength.
It is somewhat disappointing that an election of such importance be marred by
widespread corruption. The two topics sure to be addressed in the upcoming election
are corruption and national identity, both of which seem to be problems that innately
exist within Taiwan’s political institutions. Corruption has long since been an issue,
and was at the center of the DPP’s political campaign in 2000. At that time the DPP
had not been ruined by corruption and promised to be Taiwan’s savior. Unfortunately,
ambiguous regulations and laws led to the mentality that nothing is illegal unless
explicitly stated, and the DPP also became prone to crooked behavior. The parties
continued to accuse one another of being corrupt when each of them also had the
same problems, and their credibility was questioned when the tables were turned.
Frank Hsie and Ma Ying-jeou, the respective DPP and KMT candidates for the
upcoming presidential election, are currently under investigation of misappropriating
their “mayor special allowance.” Moreover, the KMT is modifying the anti-
corruption laws it originally adopted in 2005-2006 under Ma as party chairman to
keep him in the race (ironically these laws were implemented to check DPP
corruption). The KMT previously enjoyed an 80% approval rating when Chen Shui-
bian was the only reported case of corruption; its approval rating is now less than
50%. Now with both candidates under similar accusations and corruption infiltrating
both political parties, national identity will most likely be the defining issue in the
2008 election.

2. An article published on Taiwan’s government site reports that Hsieh has been accused
of bribery, as he has received money amounting to NT $2.8 million (U.S. $84,850)
from Hsu Wen-liang , the chief of a temple in Kaohsiung, “in return for his approval
of the construction of part of the temple. Hsieh insists that the NT$2.8 million was a
political donation.” He is reported to have used the money to buy two ambulances for
Kaohsiung, but his recent move to protect documents implies that the money was not
the “political donation” he described.
Chen’s scandal has also created uproar from within the local community. Jim Yardley
of the New York Times reports that:
Public revulsion over the different scandals peaked late this summer when a
former chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party organized enormous
demonstrations in Taipei calling for Mr. Chen’s resignation. At one level, the
protest represented democratic free speech. But some here worried that they
might overwhelm Taiwan’s democratic institutions, the way similar protests
prompted the recent ‘soft coup’ in Thailand or have toppled presidents in the
Philippines.
Each party was able to claim its “stronghold” in the mayoral elections this year, but
the corruption scandal posed the potential split and demise of the DPP. Even more
threatening to the democratic system as a whole is the opposing parties’ deep dislike
of one another. The corruption charges against the two presidential candidates seem
to have been a result of Chen’s scandal and a sort of “negative campaigning” to level
the playing field. Some scholars argue that demonstrations of dissatisfaction by the
people contribute to the development of democracy. Not only is debate and resistance
permitted in Taiwan, but civil society is growing, and the people are demanding that
officials be held accountable for their actions. Perhaps the effects are summarized
best by a Taiwanese political science professor quoted by Yardley: “In 10 years, when
we look back, this could be a turning point for Taiwan’s democracy to become
mature. Right now, it is a disgrace, and it is quite humiliating. But once we get pas
this, I think Taiwan’s politics will get a lot cleaner.”
What went wrong in the first place? For many Western scholars, Taiwan has been the
proof that democracy can succeed within Chinese culture. Looking back on Chen
Shui-bian’s first term as Taiwan’s president, it seemed that Taiwan was on the right
track. President Chen strongly advocated democracy and human rights while
maintaining that Taiwan and its mainland counterpart should work to uphold
“goodwill reconciliation, active cooperation, and permanent peace,” and supporting a
moderate position on the topic of independence that did not involve a separatist
movement. Now Chen and his wife face embezzlement charges, as does his son-in-

3. law, and the leader has continuously pushing mainland China’s buttons on the issue of
Taiwan’s identity. In January of 2006, Chen called for increased arms to Taiwan, and
most recently he announced that a referendum regarding the island’s application for
UN membership under the name “Taiwan” will be held next year. Although there is
debate over whether Chen himself embezzled funds or whether they were used for
secret diplomacy that is of course undocumented, his extreme approach to Taiwan’s
political situation is enough to cause disaster.
Looming Danger for Cross-strait Relations?
President Hu has expressed interest in resuming discussions with Taiwan about its
relations, a position also supported by Ma, and a KMT victory would be instrumental
in moving toward a peaceful solution for the conflict. Even if the victory was to go to
the DPP, it seems that the status quo would be maintained. Taiwan has previously
been able to rely on the U.S. to protect it in a case on conflict. While the U.S. would
still defend Taiwan if it were to come under attack by the mainland, the U.S. has made
it clear that it does not support any move on Taiwan’s part toward formal
independence. This past June, President Hu and President Bush reaffirmed both sides’
commitment to a peaceful resolution and preserving the status quo. Taiwan would
need U.S. support before it could make a move toward independence, and the U.S. is
simply unwilling to give such support.
The sharp division between the KMT and DPP has given light to the issue at the heart
of the Taiwan problem: national identity. Many people, which, until recently included
myself, believe that the problem of Taiwan lies between the KMT and the Communist
Party. Although this was the beginning of the conflict and a lengthy debate ensued on
the topic of under which party’s rule China would be united, there is a deeper aspect
to the conflict. The question of independence has not been argued by the Communist
Party and the KMT, but by the KMT and DPP instead. When the KMT fled to China
in 1949, it had high hopes of reuniting China under its rule. However, the natives of
Taiwan had formed their own unique culture based on Taiwan’s individual history.
Taiwanese did not want to reunite with the mainland, nor did they necessarily identify
with ethnic Chinese; they had formed their own national identity. Thus the dispute has
continued to manifest on two levels. On one level, Taiwan was historically a part of
China that was taken away and China’s national image and pride rests on reclaiming
what was once rightful it’s own; on another level, Taiwan has evolved separately from
China and has its own identity. The current complex political situation in Taiwan
implies that this is currently an issue of national identity that must be solved within
Taiwan first before any debate over control of a unified China ensues.