In September 1999, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) held an international symposium on political parties in transition. Participants included representatives from Europe's social democratic parties and the US' Democratic Party. They offered some interesting observations on the DPP.
Luciano Vecchi, a member of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI), said that although combating corruption was important, it was also dangerous because voters tend to hold you to higher standards. In Italy, there had been a bribery scandal involving just a handful of PSI members, but the party paid a heavy price in national elections the following year. The governing DPP is now faced with a similar predicament.
Karl Petter Thorwaldsson of the Swedish Social Democratic Party noted that the DPP hardly talked about "values." The Swedish social democrats spent an entire year discussing whether "freedom" or "equality" was the more important value, in the end concluding that freedom cannot be achieved without equality and then basing its policies on that conclusion. That is why the social democrats retain the support of most Swedish workers.
The problem plaguing the DPP does not lie in whether the party is corrupt or not, but rather in its lack of a governing philosophy. When supporters are unaware of what differentiates the DPP from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) when it comes to economics, social policy, cultural thinking and educational ideals, then clean governance is the only distinction and a single straw can break the camel's back.
From my observations the DPP's values are indeed different from the KMT's. During the dangwai era, Taiwanese democracy activists formulated ideals of democracy, environmental protection and social justice. In opposition, the DPP pushed for democratization, encouraged the participation of women in politics, the implementation of universal health insurance and the application of the Labor Standards Law (
Since coming to power, it has sought to reform the financial sector and eliminate the frequent bank runs of the past, and it has established a social welfare system encompassing employment insurance and a pension program. These achievements, however, have not been converted into a clear and consistent system of DPP values. As a result, there are a lot of confusing values in government policies, such as the policy to upgrade Taiwanese industry or the policy toward foreign workers.
Successful leaders are well aware of leadership values. Former US president Ronald Reagan spent an awful lot of time giving speeches about what seemed to be trivial matters during his presidency, but he successfully conveyed the idea of supply-side economics. That is also why former US president Bill Clinton repeatedly stressed the importance of the new economy and why British Prime Minister Tony Blair keeps talking about the "Third Way." They all know how to build faith through ideas and turn that faith into strength.
However, the DPP's philosophy is so limited, the speeches of its top leaders contain too many details but lack ideas. As a result, they fail to generate faith and strength.
Think about it: Given a couple of decades, will China even be able to match a democratic society like Taiwan, with its health insurance and pension programs. These are the foundation on which to consolidate a Taiwanese consciousness and I also believe that this would provide President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁)and the DPP with the strength to start anew.
Liu Chin-hsin is a professor in the department of chemical engineering at the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
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