One of the key characteristics of Taiwan's shallow-dished political circus and headline-driven media culture is a tendency to search for the next hot issue without seriously taking social dynamics and the public interest into account.
As the governing party, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is standing at a critical juncture in terms of selecting its next presidential candidate. The wrap up of registration for the primary last week has officially opened up the post-Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) era.
This era is significant, but not just because of Chen's attempt to set the tone early this month for all contenders by emphasizing the "four wants and one no" -- namely Taiwan wants independence, name rectification, a new constitution and new development, but no political split.
What makes the primary so important is that the DPP presidential candidate must introduce a new vision for all Taiwanese.
Regretfully, as the primary race begins, the four competitors -- Vice President Annette Lu (
To take advantage of internal power struggles in the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), Chen has proposed using a public poll to decide the DPP's best joint presidential ticket. The idea was tentatively accepted by Su and Hsieh -- who have outperformed Lu and Yu in terms of popularity.
However, Lu and Yu seem to favor the current rules of the game, that is, a combination of a direct vote among registered party members and a public poll.
Prior coordination by Chen might effectively minimize an internal spit, but it might also create a negative image of "back-door politics." Only through public debates will voters be able to understand each candidate's vision for leading the country.
Unlike the old KMT's or even the Chinese Communist Party's long tradition of "designated successors," it is impossible for Chen to endorse a successor. In this regard, the assumption that Chen can serve as a mediator among the four competitors within the DPP lacks both theoretical and democratic value.
The DPP is well-known for its pluralist, free and democratic approach to internal competition and decisionmaking. One of the party's most valuable assets lies in its democratic and open rules of competition. Any contender must win the primary to earn the candidacy, and the loser must accept the results of the primary.
Instead of worrying about former KMT chairman Ma Ying-jeou's (
Taiwanese voters are now better informed and more independent of politics. The nation's next leader will have to judge when to run up the flag and charge, or to mediate differences and seek to shift consensus by stages in the face of both internal and external challenges.
Whoever represents the DPP in the presidential election next year, he or she will have to win public support not only by incorporating negotiation and persuasion into political maneuvering, but also by being more pragmatic in fulfilling the nation's urgent need to put aside partisan dispute and uphold public interests.
Only by directly facing the nation can all four DPP competitors win support from the rank-and-file by clearly telling voters why they can do better than Chen when it comes to the questions of safeguarding Taiwan's sovereignty, forging a balanced cross-strait policy, strengthening the nation's self-defense, promoting sustainable economic prosperity and bringing about social justice and clean politics.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
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