Lee Teng-hui (李登輝1923-2020), Taiwan’s first elected president born on the island died at the age of 97. Mainstream media in Japan and the West describe Lee Teng-hui as Taiwan’s “Father of Democracy” while China’s state-run media outlets like Global Times portray Lee as the “Godfather of Taiwan Secessionism.”
Dr Lifang Peng explores Lee's impact on Taiwan and how he was viewed.
In Taiwan, Lee Teng-hui has been a controversial political figure.
On one hand, many Taiwanese politicians and media personalities, regardless of party affiliations, publicly state that Lee made a significant contribution to Taiwan’s democratisation. Lee became the first democratically elected president of Taiwan and ended the one-party government led by the Kuomintang (KMT).
Hence, Taiwanese who admire Lee call him “Mr Democracy”.
File photo of Lee Teng-hui from 2019. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
On the other hand, Taiwanese hold widely divergent opinions on Lee’s influence on “black gold politics” (黑金政治), Taiwan’s policy towards mainland China, and the democratic system of Taiwan.
People who dislike Lee argue that he is not democratic at all. They hold Lee accountable for “black gold politics”, a term used by Taiwanese to refer to a political culture riddled with gangsters and corruption.
They think by amending the Constitution of the Republic of China (ROC) Lee has made the political system of Taiwan develop towards a dominant-party system with a powerful president. For instance, Taiwan’s two major parties, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the KMT, hold divided opinions on Lee’s political legacy.
What Does the DPP Owe to Lee Teng-hui?
The DPP (the ruling party) and a few minor parties sympathetic to the concept of “Taiwanese identity” think highly of Lee. They use the honorific Chinese word minzhu xiansheng 民主先生 (Mr Democracy) to show their admiration. It can be said that the DPP and these parties owe him a great debt.
Although Lee was a member of the KMT from 1971 to 2001, his perceptions of the Constitution of the ROC and Mainland-Taiwan relations from the mid-1990s were more in line with those of the DPP.
After taking office as President (1988-2000), Lee amended the Constitution of the ROC six times, expanding presidential powers and making it extremely hard to impeach the president.
Constitution of the Republic of China 1946
Amendments to the Constitution enabled Lee to transform the KMT from within. By exercising presidential powers, Lee appointed people who were born in Taiwan and he succeeded in substituting some powerful figures of the KMT (the then-ruling party) who came from mainland China.
In 1993, a few members of the KMT opposed Lee Teng-hui because they judged that Lee was for Taiwan independence. This political ideal in their opinion was completely different from that of former KMT leaders such as Sun Yat-sen (孫中山 1866-1925), Chiang Kai-shek (蔣中正 1887-1975), and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國 1910-1988). Thus, they split up with the KMT led by Lee and formed Xindang 新黨 (New Party).
These events have created favourable conditions for the DPP to rise as a major party that can compete with the KMT. Since Taiwan became democratised in the 1990s, the DPP has won elections in 2000, 2004, 2016, and 2020. In the 2012 election, Lee supported the DPP and its presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). It was not until 2016 that Tsai became the president.
When hearing about the death of Lee, Tsai said Lee’s contribution to Taiwan’s democracy was irreplaceable and his death was a great loss. The government is considering holding a “state funeral” for Lee.
Tsai Ing-wen Photo: Wikimedia Commons
How Does the KMT Perceive Lee?
The DPP’s assessment of Lee’s political legacy will not be approved by many of the KMT and the New Party. They hold that Lee has tremendously weakened the power of the KMT. In 2001 Lee was expelled from the KMT.
Considering that Lee has just died, the KMT is not willing to publicly express any negative views on him. When journalists interviewed the current Chairperson of the KMT Chiang Chi-Chen (江啟臣) and Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) of the KMT (Tsai Ing-wen’s predecessor), both Chiang and Ma recognised Lee’s contribution to Taiwan’s democratisation.
Nevertheless, some KMT politicians, the New Party, and media personalities maintain that “Mr Democracy” partially describes the life of Lee Teng-hui.
They comment that Lee is a shrewd and successful statesman and strategist, but he has also tremendously undermined solidarity of the KMT and has caused a fragmentation of society into two hostile groups—Taiwanese and mainland Chinese who fled to Taiwan with the KMT government in 1949.
Besides, they argue that the constitutional amendments initiated by Lee’s government have created a president with unconstrained power. Opposition parties and minor parties now cannot check the powers of the DPP and the president.
For instance, Hung Hsiu-Chu洪秀柱 (former Chairperson of the KMT), Chao Shao-kang 趙少康 (a media person), and the New Party are outspoken.
They hope that the death of Lee Teng-hui would mark the end of an era of confusion and chaos in Taiwan.
By confusion and chaos, they mean that Lee has done harm to the KMT to make the DPP so powerful; he has amended the constitution, which has undermined the principle of checks and balances. In their opinion, any party or person who opposes the DPP’s policy towards mainland China is accused by the DPP of being an agent of the Chinese Communist Party without good reasons. This, they think, is not democratic at all.
Indeed, Lee’s leading role in amending the Constitution of the ROC makes it necessary to modify the current constitutional arrangements sooner or later. Otherwise, Taiwan’s democracy will suffer stagnation and continuous power struggles between the DPP and the KMT. All parties in Taiwan are still debating this issue.
What Has Caused Divergent Opinions?
The KMT, the New Party, and the DPP have different views on Lee Teng-hui’s political legacy not only because Lee’s political reforms have produced different outcomes for each party, but also because they have different political views.
Since Taiwan became democratised, the DPP has benefited a lot from Lee’s political reforms while the KMT has split and lost its dominant position in Taiwan.
The KMT and the New Party attribute the fragmentation of the KMT to Lee’s leadership and his role in black gold politics. Instead of eradicating black gold politics, Lee as the leader of the KMT consolidated the party’s relationships with local factions and gangsters, which nourished “black gold politics”.
Ultimately, people had no confidence in the KMT and therefore voted for the DPP in 2000.
As regards political views, Lee concurs with the DPP but he is at odds with the KMT and the New Party.
First, the KMT and the New Party emphasise both “Taiwanese identity” and “Chinese identity”. Lee, by contrast, highlights only the former concept. Second, Lee has a differing view on the DPP’s policy towards mainland China and the USA. The DPP led by Tsai Ing-wen keeps Taiwan estranged from mainland China and opposes policies that seek to strengthen economic and cultural ties with the mainland. The KMT and the New Party, however, maintain that the DPP’s hostility towards mainland China and its pro-America policy would only trigger a military conflict between the mainland and Taiwan.
More importantly, they have little confidence that America will wage a war against China once the Chinese Communist Party decides to resort to force to “unify” Taiwan. America prioritises its own interests instead of the interests of Taiwan. Thus, they advocate economic and cultural cooperation between mainland China and Taiwan. Lee Teng-hui is in favour of the DPP. For these two reasons above, Lee is described by some Taiwanese parties and their supporters as the “Godfather of Taiwan Independence”.
This is the first part of a two-part series on Lee Teng-hui and Taiwan democracy. The second piece reflects on Lee Teng-hui and Taiwan’s Constitutional Arrangements
- Asia Media Centre