Violent Incident Mars Status-Quo-Affirming Taiwan Election
Taiwan held a special midterm election yesterday, selecting mayors for the island’s five largest cities; these included a new city, “Sinbei,” formed from several Taipei suburbs, which had previously had county-level status. A total of 314 city council members were selected at the same time.
The results basically affirmed the political status quo: an island divided almost exactly 50-50 between the “pan-blue” political parties, led by the Kuomintang (KMT), and the “pan-green” opposition, led by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). The centrality of the green-blue rivalry was reinforced by local TV coverage, which displayed the results of races using green and blue pie charts exactly reminiscent of the red and blue ones that Americans are accustomed to seeing on election nights.
Until the night of November 26th, this election had been perhaps the most peaceful and routine in Taiwan’s history. Most previous elections had turned on the highly emotive and divisive issue of Taiwan’s relationship with mainland China. However, this midterm election, which selected mayors for Taiwan’s five largest cities, focused almost entirely on domestic bread-and-butter issues like quality of governance and infrastructure projects.
The Sean Lien shooting incident
Thus, it was highly upsetting to Taiwanese when, only hours before voting was set to begin, TV coverage was suddenly interrupted by news of an apparent assassination attempt against KMT official Sean Lien, the son of former KMT vice president Lien Chan. The incident took place in the city of Yonghe, near Taipei, just as Lien was mounting the podium to give a political speech in support of Sinbei municipal council candidate Chen Hung-yuan. A gunman rushed forward and shot Lien in the head.
Based on the most recent press reports, it appears that Lien was remarkably lucky: the bullet entered the left side of his face and exited through the right. Not only was Lien not killed or even brain damaged, but Taipei University Hospital doctors predicted that the politician, after recovering from surgery, would not even sustain noticeable cosmetic damage. Unfortunately, though, a bystander, Huang Yun-sheng, was killed in the incident.
Although Sean Lien has not been a prominent figure in Taiwan politics until recently, the same could not be said of his father, who served as premier of the ROC, vice president of the ROC, and chairman of the KMT for several years in addition to his failed presidential bid. Lien, whose detractors alleged that he became wealthy through corrupt “black gold” real estate deals, has been a pivotal figure in Taiwan’s relationship with mainland China. When Lien visited the mainland in April 2005 to meet with CCP leaders, including Hu Jintao, and toured historic KMT sites such as the Sun Yat-sen mausoleum in Nanjing, this constituted the highest-level political contact between the KMT and CCP since Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong met in Chongqing in August 1945.
The shooting had a number of bizarre aspects, even by the standards of Taiwanese politics, which for many years featured physical brawls between members of opposing political parties on the floor of Taiwan’s legislature. Perhaps the strangest was that the gunman, who was arrested at the scene and quickly identified as local gangster Lin “Horse Face” Cheng-wei, claimed that he had not even intended to shoot Lien. According to Lin, the actual target was another man, identified as municipal council candidate Chen Hung-yuan.
Chen Hongyuan and Sean Lien
Interestingly, images of the two supposedly “confused” men were displayed side by side on Taiwan TV. In this writer’s opinion, the resemblance between the two was so startlingly exact that the assassin’s claim was reasonably credible. Arguing against the “mistaken identity” theory, though, was an assertion by William Hsu, Lien’s assistant, that the shooter had shouted Lien’s name as he approached him.
Almost immediately, conspiracy theories materialized regarding the shooting. The most common was a claim that the incident had been staged by the KMT to win sympathy votes that would cause the KMT to prevail in the close election. Another theory argued that the shooting was an attempt by mainland China to influence voters towards the KMT, which Beijing favors because it opposes Taiwan independence more strongly than the DPP.
Without question, the incident bore a strong resemblance to an earlier “assassination attempt” in Taiwan politics: namely, the attack on DPP presidential candidate Chen Hsui-bian (then the incumbent president) and his vice presidential candidate, Annette Lu, in March 2004. In that incident, Chen and Lu were wounded, but not seriously, by bullets fired at their Jeep as it traveled down the street in the southern city of Tainan. KMT activists later alleged that the shooting was staged to win sympathy for the DPP. DPP supporters argued, contrarily, that it was an attempt by the KMT or by mainland China to liquidate Chen, the DPP’s most charismatic leader.
In 2004, Chen ultimately won re-election by a razor-thin margin: incredibly, his opponent, who initially refused to concede while alleging dirty tricks by Chen, was none other than Lien Chan, the father of the man shot on Friday. The temptation to “fill in the blanks” is enormous: could the Liens, father and son, have seen a staged incident in 2010 as legitimate payback for 2004? Arguing against this notion is my own observation that when Lien Chan spoke to the media on Friday and Saturday, he appeared genuinely deeply shaken — if this was an act, it was a very good one. Of course — although one is plunging deeply into grassy-knoll territory by pointing this out — this does not exclude the theoretical possibility that the son arranged the incident on his own.
Others pointed the finger at mainland China, always a popular villain in Taiwan; it is common knowledge that the CCP favors the KMT over the DPP, which Beijing regards as treasonous “splittists.” In this election, it was always considered likely that the KMT and DPP would each win two of the five mayoral races; the major question was which party would take the fifth race, earning a 3-2 advantage, and a symbolic edge in the 2012 presidential contest. Because of the closeness of the vote, it is quite conceivable that the Lien incident led to a 3-2 split in favor of the KMT rather than 3-2 for the DPP: the Taipei Times quoted several voters as saying that they voted KMT in order to make a statement against violence.
Results in detail
Geographically, the KMT prevailed in the north and the DPP in the south, as expected. The closest mayoral race was in the central city of Taichung, where the KMT’s Jason Hu prevailed in a close battle against DPP challenger Shu Jia-chyuan. In Taipei, current Mayor Hau Lung-bin was reelected; more may be heard from Hau in the future, given that his position has been a stepping stone to the presidency in the past — current President Ma Ying-jeou previously served as mayor of Taipei as well. The KMT also won in Sinbei (also spelled Xinbei).
However, the picture was not totally bleak for the DPP, which prevailed in the southern port city of Kaohsiung; crushed the KMT in Tainan; won a considerably higher share of the overall national vote than the KMT; and improved its showing nationally by several hundred thousand votes compared to the 2008 presidential election. Analysts said this augured well for the DPP’s chances in the 2012 presidential contest.
The election also reflected Taiwan’s nearly complete transition to a two-party system: smaller parties, of which there are several, won only nine of the 314 city council seats up for grabs. Forty-five seats went to unaffiliated candidates; the most noteworthy of these was Chen Chih-chung, the son of former president Chen Shui-bian, who was elected to the Kaohsiung city council as an independent. This was widely seen as a victory for the followers of former president Chen, who, notwithstanding his historic importance as the first Chinese opposition leader ever to take power in a free election, is now in prison serving a sentence for corruption.
The election of Chen’s son notwithstanding, the political incentives that appear to be freezing out smaller parties in Taiwan are similar to those having the same effect in the U.S.: most voters believe that a vote for a small-party candidate would be wasted; and aspiring politicians perceive that a party affiliation with any party other than the KMT or the DPP would leave them forever unable to influence events.
Firsthand impressions
Taiwan’s election was fascinating to witness for this writer, who has spent years of his adult life in mainland China but knows Taiwan only from brief visits. In person, the world’s first Chinese democracy was strikingly festive, with both parties holding huge rallies in a rock-concert atmosphere with music, speechmaking, and celebrity endorsements on offer while the party supporters waved flags and signs. In an environment of nonstop, breathless media coverage, all the politicians wore what seems to be the official uniform for political candidates in Taiwan: a vest with party emblems and slogans and a baseball cap. Out on the streets, in a practice reminiscent of Japan, sound trucks roamed playing political speeches; slick banners and flags promoting various candidates were ubiquitous.
What was most striking, to an observer accustomed to mainland China, was the public mood. Despite the attack on Sean Lien, the people at these rallies — for both parties — were happy. All one had to do was look at their faces to see the profound importance of the political disparity that has arisen between Taiwan and the PRC. The party activists were just grinning from ear to ear, having the time of their lives. Looking at these crowds, one saw ordinary Han Chinese faces — truck drivers, café owners, teachers, insurance salesmen — completely transformed by the sense of personal power and autonomy that democracy has given them.
The contrast with the mainland could not be greater. On the mainland, all the feelings associated with politics are overwhelmingly negative: fear, hatred, rage. Overtly, all this negativity tends to be directed against the supposedly malevolent “enemies” (foreign and domestic) that the CCP is constantly warning the Chinese people about; but in reality, it originates with the frustration that political impotence causes the population to feel, and their helplessness in the face of the contemptuous way they are treated by CCP officials almost every day of their lives. It seems impossible that much of this negative energy would not be directed against the CCP, were it not for the fact that ordinary mainland citizens can, and often do, suffer colossal adverse consequences for acting on any rebellious impulse.
Contrary to what the relativists say, political systems make a huge difference in people’s everyday behavior, and comparing Taiwan with mainland China is as good an example of this as has ever existed. The default public mood in the PRC, as I see dozens of times every day, is a kind of sullen, hostile rudeness; hysterical, atavistic ultranationalism lurks just beneath the surface. To be fair, this is more pronounced in older Chinese who lived through the traumatic 50s and 60s, but it’s not totally absent from the younger ones either.
After becoming accustomed to this atmosphere, Taiwan was a complete revelation to me: I saw more genuine smiles my first day in Taiwan than I had seen on the mainland in years. Taiwan was like every American’s fantasy China. It was friendly, polite, cheerfully democratic, a free-market system, a trustworthy trade partner, a loyal U.S. ally, and a nation that shows real respect for human rights, not just lip service. And yet, in spite of all this, Taiwan remained so deeply Chinese that, traveling through Taiwan, I felt that I was seeing the real Chinese culture for the first time — as opposed to a few painfully reassembled remnants of the cultural wasteland left behind by the soul-crushing wrecking ball of Stalinism. Laudably, too, Taiwan honors foreigners who have made contributions to Chinese society — Herbert Giles, George Leslie Mackay and Douglas Macarthur, to name just a few of many — instead of demonizing any foreigner who wasn’t a CCP loyalist, as Beijing tends to do.
In hindsight, this should have come as no surprise: the difference between the ROC and the PRC is exactly the same as the difference between the ROK and the DPRK, except that the latter is more extreme, due to the effects of the economic reforms in China. I’ve been all over Vietnam, and the behavior of northern and southern Vietnamese, even 25 years after reunification, shows the same pattern. And guess which half of Germany shows more intolerance and race riots? Frankly, the historical record is pretty clear: the quickest way to turn normal people into unbearable asses is to introduce socialism.
Of course, it would be wrong to say that there aren’t any nice people in the PRC, or that every person from Taiwan is angelic (“Horse Face” Lin certainly isn’t). But I have no doubt that the nice ones on the mainland would be even nicer if they didn’t have to live out their lives in an environment of constant fear and stupefying pro-CCP propaganda.
John –
The Sean Lien shooting was purely a local gangster thing, a fight over a local land development project. Such emergence into the spotlight of gang battles is rare but not unknown. The reason the KMT immediately went hard into the theory that it was an attack against Sean Lien is that the major players on stage that day were either gangster or had longstanding gang connections (the guy who wrestled the shooter to the ground was a made man in the KMT-connected Bamboo Union gang). By shifting the focus to Lien, the KMT can avert light being shined on the KMT’s longstanding links to local organized crime. The gangbanger who shot Sean Lien was known to KMT candidates on stage and his name was tweeted around right away. Very unlikely a locally known assassin would have been used to take out Sean Lien.
Taiwan is not “Chinese” but Taiwanese. We’re not deeply Chinese here, but one of the many expressions of the great stream of Chineseness, the Taiwanese one. The population is a mix, and many of its cultural habits come from elsewhere (the love of things Japanese here is an important cultural trait). What you see as Chinese, especially in Taipei, is mostly a faux construction of later KMT colonialism that deliberately went about destroying what did not match the KMT template for “Chineseness”.
Also, you are aware that “socialism” is exactly how Taiwan got rich, right? Taiwan was a one party state. During the miracle economy, the government owned the electricity, water, banks, trains, ports, sugar and rice trading, and had its own construction firms, etc. The Party also had/has extensive business interests. Today Taiwan has one of the best National Health Insurance systems on earth, spends much less than the US on health, and has much better health care cost control and outcomes. That “socialism” is one reason Taiwanese are relatively happy.
It’s too simplistic to call China “socialism” and Taiwan “not socialism.” Both countries are actually run in remarkably similar ways, economically speaking, by their most powerful parties, running on flows of capital from the central government to local government and local patronage networks for construction and land speculation. The major difference — which is an important cultural difference that has little to do with Chineseness — is Taiwan’s vibrant democracy. That democracy was a creation of those who saw themselves as Taiwanese and rejected the “Chineseness” of the KMT.
Michael Turton
The View from Taiwan
Thanks for the clarification, Michael. At the time I wrote up the story, there were conflicting reports about the shooter and his motive. I think it was necessary to mention other possible motives, if only because Lin was telling everyone that his intended target was Chen, and it shouldn’t be necessary to point out that one should not necessarily trust the words of a guy like Lin. That is especially so in light of the history of the Lien family and the elder Lien’s likely resentment over the Chen/Lu incident.
I did not discuss this in the story, but I also thought it was quite odd that Lien had been supposedly shot, but no direct proof of this ever appeared. Instead, the TV was just showing the outside of the hospital. Then, the public was told that in spite of taking a bullet in the face, he had miraculously escaped serious injury and would not even suffer cosmetic damage. This might sound ghoulish, but if I was a Taiwanese, especially a Green, I would want to see direct proof that Lien was indeed shot and injured that night.
About the importance of Japanese influence in Taiwan, I completely agree with you about that. In fact, one of the things that struck me the most about Taipei initially was its overwhelming resemblance to Japanese cities. It also resembles, in certain specific respects, Seoul and even Vietnamese cities (like the narrow houses with motorbikes parked outside).
About socialism/capitalism in the ROC and PRC, of course this is a very complicated question. There isn’t, and has never been, any “pure” version of either on Earth. But Taiwan today doesn’t really resemble a socialist economy, especially with respect to firm size – the economy is perhaps more based on SME’s (mostly family run) than any other nation of a similar development level. Even compared to other “capitalist” states like the ROK Taiwan is noticeably short of big companies. This is not the case on the mainland, where, as I can personally attest, the business environment is quite hostile to small companies in a number of ways.
As to the parallels between the modus operandi (political and economic) of the KMT and that of the CCP, no argument there, that is common knowledge. Same for the KMT’s organized crime connections. I would point out, though, that when you start to read about some of the stuff that goes on in the mainland, especially in the remote provinces, you start to wonder if the PRC’s much ballyhooed post-’49 cleanup of the triads and other criminal elements made any difference at all.
Very interesting article.
I have a Taiwanese SIL and I remember how, when she first was able to travel to Mainland China, she was so thrilled to visit the land of her ancestors. She thought it would bring her closer to her roots. Yet something was sadly missing, something she would discover was far more alive back home in Taiwan, what you call “real” Chinese culture.
One day China may have political freedom, but can they ever recover from the cultural destruction?
Says he shot the wrong guy? Shades of Giuseppe Zangara!
Thanks for your interesting account and take on Taiwan’s elections. I had the chance (a horrible experience) to go visit the DDR (former East Germany) in 1984 and can understand that the contrast between a free and socialist society on the same culture shows the vast superiority of free societies.
Of course, there are a few differences. Taiwan didn’t have a Ludwig Erhard who liberalized the economy. The authoritarian KMT established or continued Japanese State monopolies. (Japan had ruled the island from 1895 to 1945). It also launched big projects, mainly in infrastructure. However, contrary to the Mainland that nationalized everything, Taiwan left big portions of the economy to the private sector. Manufacturing and the success of ‘Made in Taiwan’ in the 1970s to now is all the result of private companies. The government owned companies were not the reason of success of Taiwan. They provided a stable infrastructure, but no innovation. This can be seen when some of them were privatized (Chung Hua Telecom, for instance) then these sectors would experience competition, new entrants which led to lower prices and better services for consumers. (I used to work for a telecom supplier and could see the change firsthand).
And yes, Taiwan has been better than the Mainland at keeping its original Chinese culture. Taiwan still uses the traditional Chinese calligraphy in print. It observes the traditional Chinese holidays (Dragon Boat, Qing Min Tomb sweeping, Autumn Moon festival…). The Dialect that a large portion of the population speaks is the same as spoken in southern Fujian, the Chinese Province from which many Taiwan ancestors emigrated to Taiwan. And thanks the the last wave of immigration, Chan Kai Shek’s army, you can find people and food from all over China in Taiwan!
John, a superb piece, especially as seen through your new-to-Taiwan eyes. I’ve spent over a decade living in Taiwan (my experience is essentially the mirror of yours — I only seldom visited the mainland and missed Taiwan like crazy every time.) I’m not in the mood to criticize this excellent article and I rejoice that you noticed the beautiful and utterly unique soul of the Taiwanese people. However, Taiwan is not the first Chinese democracy; Taiwan is Taiwan. Please reserve that title for if and when it happens somewhere in China.
Long live an independent and free Republic of Taiwan. May Ameerica never abandon her. And may she be armed to the teeth and always ready to defend herself.
CHINA: HANDS OFF TAIWAN! OBAMA: GROW UP, GROW A PAIR, OR STEP ASIDE.
Not bad for a guy who spends all his time in China, but a couple of things should be pointed out.
It is laughable to think that anyone not seriously visually impaired could mistake Sean Lien for Chen Hung-yuan, regardless of any facial feature similarities. Lien is a HUGE dude, about 6’4″-6’5″, probably weighing in at about a deuce and a half or more (in pounds). Chen is a much shorter, pudgy fellow, around 5’8″.
Lien Chan’s “detractors” may allege that he came by his money through corrupt land deals, etc. but the fact is he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth — old family money going WAY back. His grandfather was a noted scholar who authored a highly-regarded history of Taiwan, among other things. While no fan of the Lien family, for a variety of reasons, many (even on the Green side) are inclined to believe he’s reasonably clean (at least by Taiwan standards) on that score simply because he’s so damn rich already he needn’t risk what reputation he may have through chasing riches via official corruption.
Distaste for Papa Lien stems mostly from his rather dictatorial instincts and sense of entitlement, on full display following his 2004 electoral defeat. One could have been forgiven for feeling that he should’ve been arrested/prosecuted for fomenting rebellion after that peformance. One would not have been alone in that thinking. That’s not to mention his foray into what could only be characterized as conducting unauthorized foreign policy with Beijing that Mr. Parker mentions. There are other, more seamy, deatils regarding Papa Lien which we will not entertain here.
I’m inclined to agree with Mr. Turton that this MAY have had nothing at all to do with politics insofar that it may have EVERYTHING to do with what a notorious, ahem, jerk and bully Lien Jr. is known to be. Tales of his jackassery are legion and, as already mentioned, he is an unusually huge guy by local standards. It’s entirely possible that is was the act of a frustrated nut seeking revenge for an assualt or other slight to his honor/dignity, real or perceived, at the hands of a rather well-known bullyboy. One need not have lived here long to know that the acts of a Taiwanese male seeking revenge can sometimes be a thing to behold and often have neither rhyme nor reason about them.
What’s more suspect, however, is Mr. Turton’s certainty as to what transpired that night and in his rather Elmore Leonard-esque view of the longstanding connections between Taiwan politicos (of all parties, in fact) and the criminal underworld. The KMT is not terribly concerned about “light being shed” on those connections because a) the media won’t really touch it and b) EVERYBODY already KNOWS it anyway (yet another reason the media won’t touch it; it’s a yawner). Known gangsters, sometimes refering to themselves as “spiritual advisors” to this or that gang, have occasionally sat in parliament representing both major parties and as independents, as well as held seats in the KMT Party Central and even the policymaking Central Standing Committee.
A “made man” in the “KMT-connected Bamboo Union.” C’mon … stop with the drama. Everyone knows the KMT and the BU, as well as the Four Seas Gang among others, are as close as “lips and teeth.” No one who seriously understands the local organized crime culture would refer to “Horseface,” or any other low-level operative, as a “gangbanger.” They would also know that if you’re a “major player,” you’re probably not a gangster in the real sense; however, if you are a “major player,” you most certainly will have “long-standing gang connections.” It has always been thus. Organized crime thugs would do the party’s dissident dirty work — such as, for example, running down Chen Shui-bian and Wu Shu-chen, leaving the latter paralyzed for life, or murdering Lin Yi-hsiung’s mother and twin daughters — in exchange for legal protection for their dope, gambling, prostitution and other operations.
As for “socialism” being responsible for Taiwan’s economic success? Again, almost as laughable as Mr. Parker’s insinuation that the Chen Shui-bian/Annette Lu shooting in Tainan in 2004 was indeed staged (“legitimate payback?” WTF?). Only a socialist would want to take credit for the hard work of good old fashioned fascists, which is more precisely what the KMT regime was right through the 80s and into the early 90s (there was then no “national health care,” taxes were uniformly low, small and medium business was encouraged, incentivized overall business/investment climate, state/party/military/financial sector intertwined, etc.). Perhaps that is why you see so much similarity with the manner in which China now runs its affairs, as they are now, quite clearly, fascist in nature; Nazism with Chinese characteristics, if you will. Taiwanese are not relatively “relatively happy” because of “socialism” but because the government now “relatively” leaves them alone. Regardlesss of what they say or with whom and how many they associate.
I could, and probably should, go on to slam Mr. Parker’s assertion of that last week’s shooting “without question … bore a strong resemblance” to 2004 incident in Tainan, including his use of scare quotes around the words “assassination attempt.” But he gets a pass because he’s not a Taiwan guy, he’s a China guy. And he’s possibly been there too long. In short, there’s no resemblance. At all.
Bonez,
Niaosung, Taiwan
Bonez,
The whole point is that easy distinctions between socialist/non-socialist can’t be made in the Taiwan case. Such thinking is simplistic. You’re absolutely right about the importance of SMEs in Taiwan’s growth. Though they were never encouraged — in fact the KMT government in the 1950s mulled a purely government-owned economy but the US AID folks fought a great struggle to keep a place for private Taiwanese capitalism in Taiwan. Even then the government did nothing to support it.
I don’t think there is anything Elmore Leonardesque about the shooting — it was a fairly typical gangland incident, notable solely because it made the papers. If you’re hopped up on drugs it isn’t difficult to become confused about who you’re shooting act. It can’t have been a conspiracy. Imagine that discussion:
KMT BLACK OPS: We’re going to have you shot in the face.
SEAN LIEN: What?
KMT BLACK OPS: By a drug addled gang banger while you’re on stage with several other gangsters and gang-connected politicians, at an obscure rally of purely local interest.
SEAN LIEN: Right.
The whole idea, like the idea that Chen Shui-bien had himself shot, is absurd. It’s more likely that they are playing up the Sean Lien-as-target angle to cover the vote buying that went on during this election. But the evidence for what happened is pretty clear from the twitter record, which was made before everyone had a chance to, um, get their stories straight.
Michael
When people hear the word “socialist”, they think of leftists and the transformation of mankind; I think the proper term for the KMT economic system was “national socialism”, which is the more conventional kind of socialism and what Maoism has (d)evolved into, whereas Taiwan is now state capitalist.
As for Taiwan’s identity, I think that that is still to be determined. The Taiwanese people have not had an opportunity to speak to that yet, whatever we may think that answer would or should be. A referendum would only decide in what way Taiwan is Chinese, however, not whether it is Chinese at all. It doesn’t help that the Chinese aren’t very clear or confident on what it means to be Chinese either.