The resounding defeat of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in last week's local government elections should not have come as a surprise. This is just the manifestation of overwhelming public disappointment with the current state of the party.
While some of the credit for the election results must go to the rise of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and the new hope that his leadership has instilled in pan-blue supporters, the Kaohsiung MRT scandal also had an impact. However most of the responsibility for its electoral pummelling must be placed squarely on the shoulders of the DPP and its ineptness as a ruling party.
Since it came to power almost six years ago it seems that the party has gradually lost sight of its founding principles, what the party stands for and the kind of people who put it in the position it presently occupies.
Two of the core principles that the DPP once stood for are the promotion of Taiwan and a Taiwanese identity in the face of China's continued threats, and standing up for ordinary citizens.
DPP supporters look to the party to uphold the idea that Taiwan is an independent country and absolutely not a part of China, but since it came to power its policies have not reflected this ideal.
By giving in to business interests time and time again on cross-strait matters the DPP is gradually eroding Taiwan's strong economic identity and helping China to complete its goal of full economic integration with Taiwan (an all too obvious facet of the communist leadership's "united front" tactic).
By pandering to the demands of the business sector and ignoring the rural areas of Taiwan the DPP government is alienating the very people it should be looking after. Bending over backwards to high-powered foreign investors and local business conglomerates may be good for the economy, but it does not necessarily benefit the vast majority of Taiwanese.
Most industrialists and businesspeople are only interested in pleasing their investors and shareholders; they are not concerned about whether their workforce is Chinese or Taiwanese. Allowing them free rein to invest in China will help these companies to boost competitiveness and profitability, and increase the amounts of capital repatriated to Taiwan, but it also puts a few more everyday Taiwanese out of work, Taiwanese who are more than likely to be DPP voters.
Even the KMT, when it was still anti-China under former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), managed to divert full-scale business investment from China with its "go south" policy. Why can't the DPP continue to do the same? It would help to protect Taiwan's identity and bolster national security: two things the DPP reportedly stands for.
Joining the WTO is another case in point. Of course joining such a global organization was somewhat of a coup for Taiwan in its constant struggle for international recognition, and membership certainly benefits the nation's industrialists, businesspeople and consumers. But what benefits does it bring to thousands of small-scale Taiwanese farmers?
Entry into the WTO for Haiti in 1994 and the elimination of agricultural protection resulted in bankruptcy for thousands of chicken and rice farmers within four short years. The population is now totally dependent on the US for imports of cheap rice and turkey meat. In another example, the livelihoods of millions of small-scale and efficient cotton farmers in nations like Benin, Mali, Burkina Faso and Chad are under threat thanks to entry into the WTO and subsidized cotton from richer countries.
Of course Taiwan and its farmers are more competitive and in a better position to compete with cheap imports than those poorer countries, but the case of the "rice bomber" has already highlighted the effects of WTO entry on parts of the nation's agriculture sector.
Remaining outside the WTO is obviously not an option for a manufacturing and trade-based economy like Taiwan's, but policies that protect and help farmers should have been implemented by the government both prior to and following WTO entry. The "rice bomber's" rise surely indicates that this is not the case.
This is another example of the DPP's neglect of its grassroots support. The party needs to revitalize its rural policies, especially as it now faces direct competition from China, which is attempting to woo southern-based farmers from their pan-green leanings with tariff-free fruit imports.
The DPP's supporters are fully aware that the party has its hands tied in the legislature, with the opposition parties constantly blocking its reform and policy proposals, but this cannot be used as an excuse for it deserting them.
The leadership of the DPP really need to take a long hard look at the party and reassess its priorities and start taking care of its party faithful again.
It is no wonder the DPP's supporters deserted it at the recent polls; since it came to power more than five years ago the DPP has been slowly deserting them.
Richard Hazeldine is a Taipei-based writer.
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS