The KMT is a political party for industrialists; the DPP is a representative of disadvantaged groups. These were their basic positions for many years. Since the DPP came to power, however, it has moved closer to business. Although the recent establishment of the Alliance for Fairness and Justice, or the Pan-Purple Alliance, formed by several social activist and disadvantaged groups does not represent a split between the DPP and social-activist groups, it does mean that these groups have issued a challenge to the DPP. Whether the alliance will become a friend or an enemy in next year's presidential election will depend on the party's response.
Since its inception, the DPP has reflected the opinions and power of social-activist groups. From environmentalists, labor unions, women's groups, handicapped-people's groups, educational and Aboriginal movements, we can see the DPP's support and encouragement. After coming to power, however, the DPP found it difficult to realize its ideals -- and meet the expectations of many activist groups. For example, it was forced to resume construction the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant issue in the face of the fierce political opposition, international pressure and a weakening economy. Even though the DPP had at least made an effort to stop construction of the plant, the anti-nuclear groups are still unhappy with the party. As a result, the DPP has no choice but to rebuild its relations with anti-nuclear groups by pushing a referendum on the future of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant.
The DPP has positioned itself as a reformist party on most social issues. However, the party's revolutionary spirit has now been replaced by the capitalist consideration of competition. As the blue and green camps vie with each other to curry favor with vested interests, the idea of fairness, justice and helping the disadvantaged have been sacrificed. In the eyes of many activists, the DPP has forsaken its ideals. The changes in the party's social foundations and loss of its core values were key factors in its defeat in the recent Hualien County commissioner by-election.
Looking at street demonstrations in the past year -- from the labor protests against the hike in health-insurance fees, to farmers' protests against agricultural-financing reforms, to protests against educational reforms -- we can see the KMT's vigorous effort to transform itself.
Now, with the establishment of the Pan-Purple Alliance, we can see the loosening of the DPP's basic support. The DPP can absorb some support from business circles, use the independence-unification issue to distinguish the green camp from the blue camp, or use the referendum issue to solidify its support base. However, whether the Pan-Purple Alliance fields its own candidate or remains neutral in next year's election, it could still take votes from the DPP.
The blue camp stands to benefit from the Pan-Purple Alliance. The alliance may act as a pressure group in the election and force both the blue and green camps to accommodate its opinions. This will help correct the one-sided social values of both the blue and green camps. But if the Pan-Blue Alliance gets too involved, it will become a campaigner for the blue camp.
The question is: which side is more sympathetic to the ideas of the purple alliance, the blue camp or the green?
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS