The Dec. 3 local government elections focused attention on the Kaohsiung Rapid Transport Corp (KRTC) scandal, and as the main culprit Chen Che-nan (陳哲男) was formerly the Presidential Office's deputy secretary-general, this made the administration an easy target for the opposition. This was not the only corruption scandal brought to light during the course of the campaign. There was some truth in the torrent of accusations and suspicion that the campaign generated, and the effect was exacerbated by the public's diminished faith in the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), who have been inclined to give credence to accusations even when evidence was lacking.
In the last presidential elections, the DPP scrapped through. After their defeat in the legislative elections, the DPP said they would take heed of the lessons taught them by that election, but in fact they did nothing. Not only were they engulfed in corruption scandals, they also failed to remain true to their ideals.
It was only in the run up to the local government elections that some reforms were pushed through, but these were seen as insincere attempts to appeal to the public. Moreover, the same old tactics of smearing opponents once again came to the fore. No wonder the DPP suffered such a thumping defeat last Saturday.
Whether one chooses to call the Dec. 3 elections a skirmish ahead of the 2008 presidential elections, or a "mid-term exam," the DPP was soundly defeated. Moreover, they have not yet been able to disperse the effects of the opposition's smear campaign, which is another defeat.
A number of important DPP candidates graciously accepted defeat, and DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) announced that he will resign to take responsibility. All of this is good democratic behavior, but as for the results of its self-assessment, we'll have to wait and see.
The DPP is a democratic party that is based on a strong Taiwanese identity, and as such I have some suggestions for its future:
Listen to opinion from all levels of the party. The aim is to unify the party and strengthen its ability at self-examination rather than push blame onto others.
Put the interests of Taiwan ahead of those of individuals or party factions. A reshuffle that does not take account of personal connections is important to the rebirth of the party.
Implement reforms that benefit the people and establish a practical schedule. Power must be used to push forward reforms and establish mechanisms to prevent the abuse of power.
President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) resigned from his position as DPP chairman in order to separate party and state, but that has not been achieved. Pursuing reforms in government and the party, cooperation and division of labor between party and government could be useful.
The DPP's biggest defeat did not come when former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong visited China, but it followed Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) assuming of the KMT chairmanship, indicating that the public does not really want the government to relax cross-strait policy. The fact that Ma did not invite Lien to the celebrations of the 111th anniversary of the KMT is also a clear indication of his wish to distance himself from Lien's pro-China policy.
The DPP should not misinterpret the message and open the floodgates to China, but rather it should focus on the issue of effective management.
When it has done all this, it should look toward upcoming elections, especially the 2008 presidential poll, determine to follow the will of the people rather than use political tactics when deploying its forces and making its nominations.
Paul Lin is a commentator based in New York.
Translated by Ian Bartholomew
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers