After the National Assembly election, Taiwan's political landscape went through drastic changes. Waves of demand for self examination and scrutiny swept through all the political parties. During the meeting of the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) Central Standing Committee on Tuesday, a debate over whether to follow the "nativized consciousness" path or the "co-existence through reconciliation" path took place.
Participating members of the committee overwhelmingly believe that the DPP was able to win the National Assembly election because it remained committed to the nativized path. They also strongly questioned the "middle path" proposed by President Chen Shui-bian (
Central Standing Committee member Chai Trong (
Vice President Annette Lu (
Hsieh, who had proposed the concept of "co-existence through reconciliation," pitched a different view. He emphasized that for the DPP to enlarge its political support base, it cannot move any farther on the nativized path and must become more rational, moderate, pragmatic and stable in policy implementation. The party should propose substantive plans and a vision for national development to win the support of middle class voters, Hsieh said.
The DPP just achieved a major success in this past National Assembly election, ranking number one in both the percentage of votes garnered and the number of seats. It would be normal for the party to bask in its victory. But instead, it has immediately launched a round of discussions and self-examination. This is a phenomenon that deserves the recognition of the Taiwanese people. The DPP is a political party that is very capable of engaging in self-scrutiny and criticism.
The open and frank scrutiny and debates over the party's path on key occasions have without doubt fostered party unity and solidarity. Holding these debates has helped the party to avoid making mistakes or drifting apart from the popular will, helping it quickly evolve and grow. Such a capacity for self-scrutiny and criticism is one reason behind the DPP's success and its election victories.
The most recent debate over the party's path is particularly important. After last year's legislative elections, in light of the opposition's majority, the government set out on a path of reconciliation with the opposition as a way to leave behind the nightmare of boycotts by the pan-blue camp. A reconciliation between the ruling and opposition camps would have been a good thing. On the other hand, it is also normal in a multi-party political system for the ruling and opposition parties to check and balance each other's power and monitor each other's actions.
But Taiwan's ruling and opposition camps need to reconcile because they have become irrationally polarized. The focus of the reconciliation was supposed to be the legislative review process, rather than national identification. However, the attempt at reconciliation compelled the two sides to look for a common denominator amid sharp political differences. Lip service was paid to the issue of cooperating on bills that impact the daily lives of the people and the approval of budgets. Meanwhile, the meeting between Chen and Soong was supposed to pave the way for cooperation between the DPP and the PFP.
While the ruling party paid a severe price for the cooperation by backtracking on major political principles, the PFP continued its boycott of the arms procurement budget, the appointment of Control Yuan members, and the passage of laws governing the functions of the National Assembly, as well as many other important bills. As a result, nothing was accomplished, inviting only more popular skepticism about the nation's political leaders.
Even more worrisome is this: After the Chen-Soong meeting, Lien and Soong took trips to China, generating "China fever" in Taiwan and helping China minimize the backlash from its "Anti-Secession" Law. As a result, the Taiwan consciousness path and values suffered major setbacks.
But now that the National Assembly election is over, it is appropriate for the DPP to engage in an in-depth examination of its path and rethink the future direction of the party and Taiwan. We are especially happy to see that the view that the DPP should stick to the nativized path has won the support of the majority of high-ranking DPP decision-making members in the debates. We are even happier that Chen has dispelled any doubts by reaffirming his vow to follow the Taiwan consciousness path. As Chai pointed out, both of Chen's presidential election wins were attributable to the DPP's Taiwan consciousness path. Therefore, the DPP must not abandon and betray this path for the sake of cross-party or cross-strait reconciliation. Taiwan consciousness is at the root of Taiwan's development. The nation can move forward by embracing these roots.
But even as we recognize the DPP's commitment to stay true to the nativized path, we must correct the erroneous impression of what that path is all about. People often equate the nativized path with radicalism and extremism, mistakenly believing that advocating for the nativized path necessarily means going to the extreme -- and that in order to broaden the party's base of support, there is a need to instead adopt the middle path.
Actually, the nativized path refers to identification issues. It runs counter to pro-China and "greater China" tendencies. Nativization is a value and not a strategy. Therefore, identifying with Taiwan consciousness has nothing to do with being radical or moderate. It is incorrect to think that staying true to the nativization path will prevent the party from attracting moderate voters. Once this distinction is clear, the nation's political leaders will no longer fall into a trap, like Lien and Soong.
Taiwan consciousness and the nativized path are the core values ensuring the nation's survival, and represent the mainstream popular will of the country. Once a political party drifts away from the path, it is destined to be despised by the people.
The path is compatible with the popular interest. It is reform-minded and progressive. It is not synonymous with radicalism and extremism, and it must not be misrepresented as such. The DPP was able to take power precisely because of the rise of Taiwan consciousness. The party therefore has an obligation to stay true to this path.
The fact that the majority of DPP members agreed to stick to this path suggests that the party has found its way home after being lost for a while. This is something that the people of Taiwan are happy to see.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS