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
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS