Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) alleged involvement in misreporting political donations, using an election subsidy to purchase an office unit and giving preferential treatment to Core Pacific City Co (京華城) is incredibly mind-blowing.
Ko originally entered politics as an outsider when he ran for Taipei mayor as an independent in 2014. He demonstrated exceptional marketing strategies, winning the support of “little grasses” (小草) — his young followers.
Still, good marketing tactics are nothing without a good product. The TPP has become a place to hide vice and filth. Again, marketing strategies are of no use when there is no good product.
Ko’s scandals have made it crystal clear that he has placed self-interest above public interest by using the presidential election subsidy to buy private property. All these controversies are chilling to followers who probably regret supporting him. It seems that electoral politics is lucrative when one sets one’s mind to it. Ko’s scandals have made the public wonder if he ran for president solely for political donations and election subsidies.
After losing the election, the TPP chose to work with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) instead of supporting the re-election of then-legislative speaker You Si-kun (游錫?), a centrist member of the Democratic Progressive Party. That decision raised a few eyebrows: It was a suspicious choice. It was speculated that Ko wanted to collaborate with the KMT in the 2026 mid-term election and 2028 presidential election.
However, the TPP’s alignment with the KMT embroiled the country in a constitutional dispute following their legislative reform bills.
Ko’s scandals have given the public the perception that he ran for president to sustain his political life and to go after political donations and election subsidies. Is election a good business?
TPP legislators-at-large should represent the rights of those who voted for them, instead of Ko’s interests. To sustain its political future, the TPP must forgo its one-man decisionmaking policy and adopt a collective decisionmaking process. The party must also stop being a subordinate of the KMT under the delusion that they could benefit from the KMT in the coming elections.
Dictatorship breeds corruption. Collective decisionmaking is a democratic system that prevents corruption. The TPP has to get rid of one-man decisionmaking to be reborn. It is the party’s choice of vanishing or surviving.
If the TPP’s legislators-at-large could demonstrate a nonpartisan stance by acting in pursuit of the well-being of the people, the party could remain a significant minority and have a chance to survive in the coming elections. On the other hand, if the party went after its self-interest in the coming elections, the public would eventually see through it. Whether the party’s political life is a flash in the pan depends entirely on its decision.
Wang Chih-chien is a professor at National Taipei University’s Graduate Institute of Information Management.
Translated by Fion Khan
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS