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.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS