Here is a simple question: What is the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP)?
The original TPP was established during the Japanese colonial era by Taiwanese democratic trailblazer Chang Wei-shui (蔣渭水), and the name carries heavy historic significance.
However, the chairman of the new version, Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), has performed a reverse takeover, hijacking the historic party name and coming out with political slogans that are prettier than practical, including: “An inclusive society with national governance, in Taiwan’s name, based on the people,” “Reason, Pragmatism and Science,” “Popular will, professionalism and values” and “Executive power.”
Can Ko’s TPP’s live up to its name? Further observation is needed, but this is doubtful.
Ko once said: “I am deep green.” Yet, the TPP is utterly opposed to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
This is how political parties operate in a pluralistic democracy. However, a key question is, why has Ko relinquished party control by letting TPP Legislator Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) help Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) party convenor Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) use the legislative tyranny of the majority to infringe on Taiwanese’s rights and liberties? To date, Ko has remained silent on this matter.
“Taiwan urgently needs character education. Those with character need to be morally brave. They should speak up when they see something wrong. We need to consider how to create an environment that allows students to see unjust things, and dare to speak out. This is the education we need the most,” Ko said when he was head of National Taiwan University Hospital’s Department of Traumatology in 2013.
Eleven years later, Ko’s words are caricaturesque.
The sinking of the TPP’s political morals and ethics has been glossed over by young Ko supporters, yet not even they can avert their gaze when they see the chaotic outcome of the KMT-TPP legislative collusion.
Human nature is frail. The TPP painted itself as a third political force against the “absolute KMT-DPP polarization,” but the TPP fell into line as a KMT subordinate, a “little KMT.”
What is the political significance of young Ko supporters voting for the TPP then? What would the TPP be without them? This is a problem Ko needs to answer immediately.
Knight Chang is a political worker.
Translated by Tim Smith
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS