In March, I was invited to a forum organized by the DPP's Policy Research and Coordination Committee. During the forum, DPP Legislator Tuan Yi-kang (段宜康), who has always been a candid person, raised a "great question" that still leaves a deep impression on me today.
Tuan's question was: "What are the DPP's core values after coming to power?" He had no answer to the question, but he raised the expectation that the DPP can set an example by restraining itself from doing certain things so as to show that the party still upholds the core values from its days as an opposition party.
It takes considerable courage for a ruling party's legislator to question his or her own party about where its core values are. Tuan's expectations about his party's attitude also proves that some people in the DPP have definitely lost the ability to reflect on themselves and their performance after coming to power.
Regrettably, during the DPP's review of its Hualien County commissioner by-election campaign, we did not hear any great question like the one raised by Tuan.
The various opinions and reviews appeared to be reasonable on the surface, but they only dealt with technical issues, not with essential values.
For example, the DPP should certainly review the effectiveness of its heavy-handed mobilization of administrative resources and policy announcements aimed at attract votes. But what really needs to be reviewed is whether certain things should have been done at all.
This is a question that involves core values.
When the KMT was in power, the DPP hated the KMT's way of justifying its actions by their goals. Such antipathy was based on one of the core values of the DPP as an opposition party.
In the past, when the DPP questioned the KMT's imposition of martial law, the KMT argued: "Why should you be afraid of martial law if you are not engaging in sedition?"
Now that others are questioning the constitutionality of DPP's anti-vote-buying mea-sures, the party argues: "Why should you be afraid of the anti-vote-buying checks if you are not buying votes?"
In the past, the KMT said, only 0.3 percent of the martial law measures were actually carried out, so it was not all-out martial law.
Now the DPP is also saying, roadblocks were only set up on an irregular basis at irregular spots so it was not all-out implementation. And what's so wrong about the crackdown on vote-buying?
The anti-vote-buying checks and martial law may seem like two different matters, but the logic behind the two parties' arguments is the same. And so are the attitudes -- merely emphasizing the appropriateness of the goals and ignoring the legality of the means, or even ignoring the appropriateness of the means.
The foremost question the DPP needs to ask itself is not "Why did we lose the election after taking such and such actions?" nor "How should we do it in the future in order to win?"
Instead, it should ask itself: What did the DPP do during the election campaign that contravened the core values it had insisted on in the past?
How is the DPP to find exemplary "ruler's core values" in its history and traditions as an opposition party?
The Hualien defeat is a great opportunity for the DPP to review its core values after three years in power.
The party may not be making the most from its defeat if it is merely calculating the technicalities of victory and defeat.
Wang Chien-chuang is president of the Journalist magazine.
Translated by Francis Huang
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
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
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
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