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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS