Before asking what the difference is between the blue camp's Democratic Alliance and academia's Democratic Action Alliance, we should first ask what are the similarities. Looking at the names there is little difference, except for the word "action" in the second. Both begin and end with "democratic" and "alliance." Also, both emerged after the presidential election. If we wanted to compare their etymology, we might say that they were twins.
But there are areas of uncertainty. First, the Democratic Action Alliance is an actual entity that emphasized "a middle force and beneficial social consciousness" in its charter. The Democratic Alliance is, despite much passionate talk, no more than a castle in the air, and aims to achieve no more than approval from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) to incorporate its members into their camp.
Put another way, the Democratic Alliance, come the year-end legislative elections, will be an anti-green force and is completely in accord with the blue camp. It is something very different from the Democratic Action Alliance with its emphasis on a middle way and beneficial social knowledge, for it is blue to the core.
It is interesting to speculate why the Democratic Action Alliance, with its emphasis on balance and the public good, and the purely politically motivated Democratic Alliance have such similar names. Why do they brand themselves in such a similar ways? You might say that it was the result of political sleight-of-hand, or you might simply say that it was a lie.
Former US president Abraham Lincoln is widely thought to have said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Lincoln was referring to deceit. Sadly, the Democratic Action Alliance could only fool us for a month. Even more sadly, it was their own people who saw through the illusion.
The foolish former DPP chairman Hsu Hsin-liang (
The battle between this third power and the KMT has nothing to do with public affairs, but the fact that Cheng has colluded with the Democratic Action Alliance cannot be denied. In the Democratic Action Alliance's anti-6108 declaration [against the proposed NT$610.8 billion arms deal], Cheng led the charge, proving that the two alliances have been made from the same mold. So the secret is out as to whom the two fake democratic alliances are really acting for.
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
TRANSLATED BY Ian Bartholomew
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry