In the recent local elections, Taiwan's voters have dealt the Democratic National Party (DPP) a huge loss. How can we explain this strong and relatively sudden decline in the DPP's support among the electorate?
First, in most mature democracies, voters eventually vote out the government and vote in the opposition. In the eyes of the voters, as the party holding the presidency, the DPP has become the ruling party. This partially explains the losses in Ilan County, where the DPP and its dangwai (outside the party,
Second, the corruption issue resonated strongly with voters. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was much more corrupt when in power, but voters were more concerned with the current ruling party. The Chen Che-nan (
Third, we must remember that the DPP is weak organizationally even in the area of its electoral strength, the southwestern region of Taiwan. In Chiayi County, which President Chen Shui-bian (
Party identification also remains weak even among politicians. Of the 15 candidates for county commissioner and the legislature in 2001 in Chiayi County, fully two-thirds had changed party affiliation within the previous two years. This is a weakness that the DPP must overcome before it can hope to run the nation effectively.
Finally, the DPP must remember that the purpose of elections is to gain office in order to implement policies. Too often the DPP has seen elections as an end in themselves. Too many times people have gained office only to leave and run in another election. Too many times the president has called for a Cabinet reshuffle.
If Chen Ding-nan (
If this election defeat results in another churning of positions, the DPP will have gained nothing from this defeat.
Vibrant democracies require both strong ruling parties and strong opposition parties. The presidential and legislative elections are still two years away. For Taiwan's sake, let us hope that both parties use these two years to reform themselves. If they do, the nation's voters will have a choice between two decent alternatives. Then, Taiwan as a whole will benefit.
Bruce Jacobs is professor of Asian languages and studies and director of the Taiwan Research Unit at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
US President Donald Trump recently repeated his claim that “Taiwan stole America’s chip industry,” reigniting public debate on the issue. As a former Taiwanese minister of economic affairs and an entrepreneur deeply involved in semiconductor supply chain development, I feel a responsibility to clarify this misunderstanding. From the perspective of global industrial evolution and the economic principle of comparative advantage, such a statement appears overly simplistic and risks obscuring the essence of the issue. The rise of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was not built on “replacing America,” but rather emerged as a result of countries pursuing different development paths within the
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto says he knows how to fix the problems facing Indonesia. Yet his economic mismanagement and authoritarian tendencies are steering the nation toward a familiar mix of currency instability and political chaos. The world’s fourth-most populous nation risks reversing the hard-won democratic and business reforms that came after the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997. At that time, the rupiah collapsed and the political upheaval that followed forced former president Haji Mohamed Suharto from power. Prabowo’s administration is ignoring similar warning signs. That disconnect was apparent in a national address on Wednesday, when Prabowo projected the swagger that has