The presidential and legislative elections take place on Saturday. Every election is important and the main characteristic of these elections is generational change.
Five years ago, Justin Trudeau, then 43, became prime minister of Canada; in 2017, Emmanuel Macron, then 40, was elected president of France; the same year, Jacinda Ardern, then 37, became prime minister of New Zealand; and last year, Sanna Marin, 34, became prime minister of Finland.
We live in a time of generational change, and the baton is being passed to men and women of the younger generation as they take over to lead people into a new era.
The Taiwanese elections are a clear manifestation of this.
First, from Keelung to Pingtung, there is a difference of almost 25 years in the average age of the candidates of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
This equates to a whole generation and, fittingly, these elections are indeed about generational differences.
The average KMT candidate is 62 years old and the party claims that the experience of its candidates is what makes it the only viable choice.
However, what kind of experience do they have?
By comparison, some of the distinguishing features of the DPP’s candidates are that they have no complicated vested business interests in their baggage, and they have gone to the best schools at home and abroad, graduating from Yale, Harvard and National Taiwan University.
If the DPP’s candidates, whose average age is 38, are elected, their uncomplicated background, capability and energy would allow them to build a new vision for the next 20 years.
Surely all the education and training they received were undertaken with the intent that they should be the nation’s leaders.
Given the wisdom of voters, why should they not make the best of this opportunity for these candidates and themselves?
Another cross-generational characteristic that is closely related to Taiwan is the generational change in China: The 1990s was the decade when China went from poverty to development, and the 2020s are set to be the decade when it slips from development into decline.
Economically, the US’ trade and technology sanctions and the outflow of foreign businesses are likely to result in economic decline in China, just as Japan slipped into decline in the 1990s.
Socially, the turmoil in Hong Kong, China’s inability to respond to Hong Kongers’ demands for direct elections and the reliance on police violence against young protesters would also lead to domestic economic decline and increased unemployment.
The inability to respond to social demands would lead to suppression of the public by the paramilitary Chinese People’s Armed Police Force, and Hong Kong would become the fuse that sets Chinese cities on the path from stability to upheaval.
Tragically, in the face of these generational changes, the older generation in the People First Party (PFP) and the KMT have made it clear that they have no vision for the future
They have slid from opposition to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) through fear to friendliness and then sycophancy, making the CPP’s views their own.
As people around the world condemn the CCP and Hong Kong police for their violence and cruelty against young protesters, candidates on the KMT’s legislator-at-large list have expressed their support for Hong Kong’s police force.
While democratic governments respond to the global situation by passing anti-infiltration legislation, the KMT and the PFP are throwing their lot with the White Wolf’s [Chang An-le (張安樂)] China Unitification Promotion Party, using various insinuations to block national security legislation.
Does the KMT not have even one person left with an international outlook?
It is not surprising that such a political party would nominate s its presidential candidate someone who abandoned his position as mayor of Kaohsiung and kneels more than he walks.
It is, in fact, only fitting.
The elections represent a generational change in Taiwan. The nation’s outstanding young people and all Taiwanese have an opportunity to lay the foundations for the nation’s next 20 years.
Mike Chang is an accountant.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
After the coup in Burma in 2021, the country’s decades-long armed conflict escalated into a full-scale war. On one side was the Burmese army; large, well-equipped, and funded by China, supported with weapons, including airplanes and helicopters from China and Russia. On the other side were the pro-democracy forces, composed of countless small ethnic resistance armies. The military junta cut off electricity, phone and cell service, and the Internet in most of the country, leaving resistance forces isolated from the outside world and making it difficult for the various armies to coordinate with one another. Despite being severely outnumbered and
RSS