The Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) potential split came to an end with President Chen Shui-bian (
The episode showed that unity is the only solution to the DPP's survival and continued governance. Its tradition of open and pluralist competition is also key.
As a lame-duck president, Chen taking over the DPP chairmanship also illustrates the uniqueness of Taiwanese politics. Not only is he trying to remain politically relevant for the remainder of his term, he remains the main political heavyweight in the pan-green camp.
After a 13-day absence and repeated rumors about his health, Hsieh restarted his campaign following Chen's announcement. Hsieh invited Chinese National Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (
Contrary to his earlier low-key endorsement of Chen's referendum agenda, Hsieh demonstrated his absolute support for the referendum and accepted the issue as one of the most important of the presidential campaign.
Despite the dramatic Chen-Hsieh cooperation and the reorientation of the DPP's campaign, there are three major challenges that both men need to tackle.
The first is the extent to which Chen might overshadow Hsieh in the course of the campaign. When questioned by reporters on how they would work together on the campaign, Hsieh said Chen was in charge of state affairs while he was running the election campaign.
Chen said he did not foresee coordination problems because Hsieh would rule on campaign strategy matters.
Nevertheless, given that the referendum campaign is the most controversial issue and Chen's dual role, his words and deeds will no doubt draw the most media attention, which could marginalize Hsieh. This explains why Hsieh raised his profile on the referendum bid.
A clearer division of labor should be arranged between Hsieh's camp and DPP headquarters and more coordination is needed within the green camp to keep everyone on the same page.
Second, Hsieh must refocus the campaign to become more candidate-centered. Despite his limited personal charisma, Ma should not pose strong competition for Hsieh, who is one of the DPP's most visionary and creative political leaders. He proved his capabilities as an administrator both as Kaohsiung City mayor and as premier.
Ma, on the other hand, has a long record of opposition to democratic reform and the notion of Taiwan-centric consciousness. His recent push for a referendum to use any flexible name -- including the Republic of China or Taiwan -- to return to the UN was simply an attempt to assimilate the DPP agenda.
Ma's performance as Taipei mayor was also lackluster, though people may not realize it because he was protected by the pro-unification media.
Not only has Ma failed as KMT chairman to achieve his internal reform proposals, he supported the party's irrational boycott of the DPP government programs.
When it comes to the question of who is more capable of leading the nation in the process of becoming a normalized country, prosperous economy and advanced democracy, Hsieh's greatest competitor seems to be Chen, not Ma.
Most importantly, Hsieh must convincingly explain to voters how he would implement his notion of "seeking reconciliation and coexistence" for Taiwan in the wake of what is expected to be an increasingly negative and ugly presidential campaign.
Liu Kuan-teh is Taipei-based political commentator.
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
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,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS