The comment "You dare not pass it?" (好膽麥過) uttered by DPP Secretary-General Wu Nai-jen (吳乃仁) gives considerable food for thought. In a surreal way it was surprising, leaving one feeling as if one had come face-to-face with an ancestor straight out of the history books.
During its attempt to reverse the workweek legislation, the DPP was clearly in an inferior position. Even if its total number of seats in the legislature were recounted a hundred times, the DPP would still come up with fewer seats than the opposition alliance. And yet, if the two sides didn't try to kill each other, or at least spew invective at each other, it just wouldn't feel like Taiwan any more. Hence, the "You dare not pass it?" challenge by the DPP's secretary-general.
The DPP deserves to be called the first "local" political party. Its political personality was inherited honestly from its Taiwanese ancestors. In contrast to "mainlanders," these Taiwanese ancestors migrated to Taiwan during the Ching dynasty. The relationship between "local Taiwanese" and "mainlanders" is such that trivial matters are enough to touch off fighting between them.
The DPP's personality certainly can't be considered "composed" or "self-restrained." A thin layer of "loyalty" seems to emanate from its very being. Before winning the reins of power, this "loyalty" appeared to be not such a bad thing, serving as a foil to the lethargy and decay of the KMT and making the DPP appear vigorous and dynamic by comparison. No matter whether it was on street corners or in the Legislative Yuan, the DPP's highly vigorous method of practicing politics was eminently capable of venting the dissatisfaction felt by many members of the public.
If you're standing in a crowd, and you see a young person nearby shouting and jumping up and down, it can be an interesting diversion from the lackluster performance onstage. But, if the same youth is placed in the spotlight, the audience wants to see an excellent performance, not someone acting like the Eveready battery boy -- flapping around like he wants merely to vent his feelings.
In the past 10 months, a spirit of indulgence has spread among the DPP's big guns. Annette Lu lamented being the "deserted concubine." In front of another audience, President Chen Shui-bian said with resignation to Lin Hsin-yi (林信義) that if Lin were a woman, he would have chosen "her" as vice-president. To his long-time rival Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), Chen said, in Hokklo (福佬), "The [presidential] election's over -- so what do you want to do about it?" Generally speaking, the DPP hasn't been able to display a stable, mature leadership style. Rather, it has used words much as daggers to attack the enemy -- and even colleagues -- repeatedly giving people an impression of superficiality and rashness.
On the tumultuous political stage, there isn't a politician who hasn't at one point been unhappy about something. The KMT has traditionally encouraged its members to keep any dissatisfaction concealed, and focus on preparations for behind-the scenes struggle. The DPP, however, is too much like our ancestors, openly calling attention to its unhappy state, unable to contain its emotions or refrain from fighting. The ancestors cursed their enemies with club in hand, while the DPP simply curses.
The DPP can be complimented on its primitive support for equality -- a quality it shares with its Taiwanese ancestors. Still, the past 10 months have proven that the DPP needs to take a hard look at itself, and reflect on how to improve upon its method of expressing indignation and anger. Otherwise, very soon it will revert to being the vigorous opposition. If that were to happen, the public would probably feel that the DPP got what it deserved.
Chen Ro-jinn is a freelance writer.
Translated by Scudder Smith
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
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath