Following the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) overwhelming victory over the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in the recent county and municipal elections, some of the international media predicted that the KMT would succeed in forcing their pro-unification agenda through both the legislative and the executive branches of the government.
But the election results far more likely reflected a myriad of local factors, rather than voters' rejection of Taiwan's continuing democratization. In other words, the result may have signaled widespread dissatisfaction with the conduct of the messengers, but hardly of the message of democratization itself.
Still, this clarification mitigates neither the burden of a resounding defeat on the DPP, nor the crisis the defeat entails.
In reality, one of the first consequences of the elections was a clarion call from the public for top-to-bottom reform of the DPP. This was accompanied by a chorus of demands to further "deregulate" cross-strait relations.
There is no doubt that the DPP needs reform. After all, a political party's primary function is to perform well in elections. Every time there is a colossal failure, reform is a must.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to question whether a party, with a leadership prone to factional squabbles is capable of truly transforming itself, without having the efforts disintegrate into endless recriminations, further aggravating the crisis.
Alternatively, perhaps a team of outside experts should be assembled to look into the existing structures and come up with recommendations for changes. One of the important questions that begs for an answer is how to remain competitive in local politics without emulating the KMT's culture of corruption.
Regarding cross-strait relations, what the KMT is offering focuses on short-term benefits, at the expense of Taiwan's long-term interests. Still, the KMT's message of an illusionary "peace and prosperity" has found a receptive audience among Taiwanese who are willing to temporarily cast aside their reservations about the KMT's past and present transgressions.
Conversely, given that the DPP is taking the long-term view of Taiwan's national security which in turn guarantees Taiwan's continuing democratization, the DPP's approach to cross-strait affairs often imposes on the public various degrees of short-term sacrifice -- be it time or profit.
Therefore, unless politicians and government officials from the DPP conduct themselves with a similar spirit of self-sacrifice, the DPP's message on cross-strait issues will go nowhere.
In other words, it serves little purpose for the pan-green camp to bemoan the general public's lack of farsightedness, or their collective amnesia about the KMT's 50-year abuse of power in Taiwan.
It is not surprising that the Taiwanese people would hold DPP politicians to a high standard, with a squeaky-clean record a minimum requirement.
All of this might also partially explain why so many people, including some within the DPP, are in favor of removing "burdensome" regulations. Yet, further deregulation is the wrong medicine for the DPP.
For one thing, the enhancement of the nation's long-term interests is the DPP's raison d'etre. If deregulation is found to be detrimental to those interests, it should be curtailed instead of being expanded.
Moreover, from a practical point of view, further deregulation will erode the DPP's hard-core support base, which is apparently willing to overlook the DPP's shortcomings as long as it is upholds its core values.
Conversely, given that President Chen Shui-bian (
Viewing these latest elections from a broader perspective, the pan-green camp should be able to take some comfort in the fact that it still garnered 42 percent of the votes even under "perfect storm" conditions for the KMT. The next major elections are two years away. And two years is an eternity given Taiwan's fickle voter sentiment.
The DPP should just shape up and stay the course.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
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