The local government elections are over. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) won 14 constituencies to the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) six. DPP Chairman Su Tseng-tsang (
The seeds of this defeat were planted long ago, when the party, still in opposition, promised reform, localization and a clean government -- promises it did not deliver after gaining power in 2000. Now that the promises are fading, so is public support for the party.
Before the elections, many DPP supporters said the party had deviated from its founding ideals after it gained power. They add that slogans calling for "reform" and "localization" are only dusted off during elections, while its "active deregulation" policy has seriously damaged Taiwan's economy and prompted a rise in pro-China sentiment. These supporters have now taught the DPP a lesson by not campaigning for candidates, and even abstaining from voting. The party's political future is clearly at risk.
It is true that the DPP's reform effort has suffered from its minority position in the legislature. However, issues that do not need to go through the legislature -- such as the 18 percent preferential interest rate -- were only rushed onto the agenda just prior to the elections, which raises questions about resolve. And for all the talk of reform, the government has focused on deregulating investment in China, pushing a position similar to that held by the KMT and the People First Party (PFP).
The policy has strengthened the opposition's position among undecided voters by making the KMT's and the PFP's idea that Taiwan's hopes lie in China's booming economy appear both natural and unavoidable.
Under the DPP, localization is politically incorrect while active deregulation is politically correct. Top leaders have questioned calls to change Taiwan's national title and write a new constitution, while confirming the active deregulation policy.
The message is that the DPP government is implementing the political and economic policies of the KMT and PFP.
Active deregulation and other policies have meant continued high unemployment and other social problems. Officials concentrate on serving Taiwanese businesspeople in China, reducing local residents to second-rate citizens. What should the public think when the DPP, which used to claim to protect the disadvantaged, now helps create unemployment? It has also opened itself up for criticism from the PFP for both insufficient deregulation and creating poverty.
In recent elections, top DPP leaders have tried to mobilize traditional supporters with calls to change the nation's title and write a new constitution, recitations of "one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait" and giving priority to investing in Taiwan. As soon as the elections are over and the party has its votes, however, promises regarding localization and reform are forgotten and active deregulation rules the day. This is tantamount to asking voters who want the DPP to pursue localization to get on the party's China train. Apart from die-hard DPP supporters, who else do they think they are fooling?
The same thing happened during last year's legislative elections. Afterwards, party leaders changed their tune. They told supporters that "It simply can't be done." The premier has said that the push for a new national title and constitution will be put on the back burner, and the focus will be on reconciliation and "one China under the Constitution."
Do they think they will be able to go on cheating voters by ignoring their own promises and treating voters as if they were disposable? Are they completely unaware that voters no longer want to be held hostage by the DPP?
Before the elections, the government announced a second Economic Development Advisory Conference (EDAC). There are signs, however, that the second EDAC will simply be a show to confirm the active deregulation policy. If this is true, the DPP's future looks even darker.
We implore the government to stop its slide toward China, lest its performance in future elections become even worse.
In the past, the government's focus on active deregulation and effective management resulted in unmanaged deregulation. It claimed to prioritize investment in Taiwan, but did not ask how to resuscitate local industry. And although top leaders said they would prefer to halt deregulation in the absence of effective management, management remains ineffective and deregulation continues to expand.
These matters touch on the government's credibility and involve Taiwan's economic future, which is looking bleaker and bleaker.
However, the straw that broke the camel's back was the Kaohsiung MRT scandal, which dealt a heavy blow to the party's clean image. The combination of the DPP's inability to stay true to localization and reform, as well as corruption among some officials, alienated voters.
The loss shows that Taiwan's voters will not back a government that doesn't support localization. If the DPP cannot implement reform and localization, or offer a clean government, the praise it earned in the past will turn into scorn.
The public has cast a vote of no-confidence in the DPP government. We now must wait to see whether the party is capable of soul-searching and regaining the trust of mainstream voters who hope for a progressive DPP that can help develop Taiwan.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS