For an insight into the depth of political analysis in the Chinese-language press about Taiwan, head on over to ESWN for an article about the ‘missing government in Taiwan’. The article he translates is basically an anti-Chen Shui Bian rant with little or no facts to back it up, and is, unfortunately, pretty indicative of the level of discourse here in Taiwan. Now go and read Michael Turton’s excellent rebuttal, to show how fact-free it really is.

A few points that sprang out at me in addition to Michael’s comments:

• The basic premise ‘The government of Taiwan is MIA’ is actually painfully true. Literally speaking it’s true (one of the 5 branches of government has been inactive for 5 months now), and pragmatically speaking it’s also pretty true (there has been such a deadlock between the KMT-controlled legislature and the DPP-controlled executive that a record low number of pieces of legislation have been passed). This deadlock, caused by an inability of the Greens and Blues to find any middle ground goes to the core of the political problem in Taiwan. However, because it’s a murky issue (with blame on both sides), it doesn’t fit in to the anti-DPP screed which ESWN reproduced.
• How can anyone start a paragraph with the sentence The “old ten great projects” included items such as the CKS airport, and not follow up with an analysis of the built-in nepotism of those projects (which were started by CKS’s son)? I doubt the writer noticed the irony. I don’t think anyone would dispute that those ten projects were very beneficial to Taiwan’s development – but you’d have to be incredibly naive to think they didn’t benefit those in power (and their friends) more. Of course, the level of public scrutiny of projects started while the country was under martial law compared to the new projects (started in a fully democratic society) is incomparable.

Finally, in ESWN’s disclaimer (“It wasn’t written by me, and I don’t really know anything about Taiwan anyway”), he makes the odd claim:

If they think that universal suffrage will solve all problems, then they are quite wrong; it had better be universal suffrage with some attention against the invasion of special interests beforehand or else it will be too late afterwards.

While I agree that universal suffrage isn’t a magic cure, I think he’s got this completely wrong. The one-party rule of the KMT was an invasion of special interests – and democracy (along with a free press which allows Nan Fang-shuo to write articles like this) is the only cure that I can think of. Public scrutiny and an ability to vote out the worst offenders is the best antidote to corruption – it takes time, and it’s imperfect, but it does work.