The Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) chairmanship election race is heating up. It is good to note that the general tone of the campaign is high, with the candidates vying for votes by explaining their ideals and opinions, and that so far there have been no vote-buying scandals. This is in complete contrast to the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) recent chairmanship election, where attacks on opponents claiming that they were engaged in black gold politics, proponents of Taiwan independence or followers of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) were rife. These ruthless election tactics led to internal problems that still remain unsolved.
The peaceful nature of the DPP chairmanship election race does not, however, mean that party members are indifferent or that there is no controversy -- the election does, after all, concern the future of the party and should at least serve to restore its fortunes. The three candidates have vastly different qualities: one being an experienced veteran of the Taiwan independence movement, another a co-founder of the party who has a wealth of experience in government and party affairs, and the third, a new face who has long worked at the party's grassroots level. We will have to wait and see what kind of leader DPP members will choose.
A consensus exists, however, on the three main issues affecting the DPP's future direction -- sovereignty, reforms and clean government.
Apart from not weakening the status of Taiwan's sovereignty, the sovereignty issue also means protecting Taiwan's mainstream values. This involves dealing with the cross-strait relationship in a firm manner while using both caution and skill. Legislator Chai Trong-rong (蔡同榮) and former Presidential Office secretary-general Yu Shyi-kun are both tough, and based on her grassroots credentials, it appears that former Changhua County commissioner Wong Chin-chu (翁金珠) is no pushover. When Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) became party chairman, he immediately brought in Tung Li-wen (董立文) from the dangwai (outside the party) era and gave him the important post of director of the party's Department of Chinese Affairs in a show of his understanding of the party's weaknesses.
Regarding reform, this basically means party-based structural reform. One of the main reasons behind the DPP's failure over the past few years has been that the party has not yet made the transformation from an opposition party into a governing party. As a result of this, it has neglected to improve its ability to govern and instead remained an election machine. It has also neglected to tackle the corruption that inevitably follows upon the accession to power. Reform does not mean severing all ties with the past; some elements must remain in place together with new creative elements. Nor does it imply a complete separation of party and government officials -- rather, there must be both cooperation and separation, both assistance and supervision.
And finally, clean government. Apart from distancing itself from corruption and scandals, this should also mean steering clear of fame or benefits, being prepared to make sacrifices, trusting people, and meeting with grassroots party members and people in general. Only by maintaining close contact with its grassroots will the DPP be able to cast off the shackles the KMT has used to restrict Taiwan over the past 50 years.
In addition, it is hoped that the new DPP chairperson will be tolerant and adopt a comprehensive approach that rises above personal quarrels. This is the only way to unite a party that is currently involved in factional disputes. The new chairperson will be taking over the helm at a difficult juncture, and will have a long, hard road ahead.
Paul Lin is a New York-based political commentator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS