After the legislative elections, I waited to see letters from whining, complaining and backbiting Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) supporters. At first all seemed well, but of late this tripe is beginning to creep in, with Jonathan Yen's (Letters, Jan. 21, page 8) claim that it's all the media's fault (to say nothing of the fact that a substantial number of Taiwanese are too stupid to detect media bias), Hans Stockton's (Jan. 20) argument that it's simply the electoral system's fault and Charles Hong's (Jan. 18) claim that any failings of the DPP can simply be laid at the feet of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Hayley Swinamer's (Jan. 18) teary-eyed encomium about Taiwan topped the whole thing off with praise that was apparently supposed to refer back to the DPP, while wholly discrediting the KMT.
While these opinions may at times have their merit, they are usually framed by DPP supporters who are for the most part hostile and self-serving, and simply dish out blame and deny any shortcomings of the "right team."
The DPP lost the election. Could it be Taiwan's economy that was behind the loss? Nah, the economy is fantastic -- and those that don't get it must be morons (this is often the Taipei Times' editorial line). Well, while this foreigner is doing okay teaching English in Taiwan, I can tell you that many of the people I know have indeed lamented the state of the economy, and how it does not currently provide them with enough opportunity and rewards.
Well then, is it the electoral system itself? This is a crybaby argument that ignores the fact that the KMT, like it or not, got more votes than the DPP (and though there were a few objections, nobody I saw before the election was demanding the system's annulment). Well maybe we can broaden the scope, and simply note that the other guys are all criminals and closet autocrats anyway, and so they must have done something devious in order to win. This is the dictators versus democrats view, and it is a venomous, unhelpful and simplistic approach to the issues that people in this nation face.
Instead of apportioning blame and howling about the injustice of it all, the DPP and its supporters need to wake up to reality and rein in their worst instincts. The supercilious tone of the DPP's cheerleaders, their self-righteous declamations of exactly what anyone and everyone in Taiwan should and must think and do, and their routine denigration of one half or more of Taiwan's population have gotten utterly tiresome. These are all reasons, I think, that many people are in the process of drumming the DPP out of power.
All of this is endlessly frustrating for those of us who want to see the emergence of a wise, equitable and progressive civic discourse in Taiwan.
David Pendery
Taipei
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
The inter-Korean relationship, long defined by national division, offers the clearest mirror within East Asia for cross-strait relations. Yet even there, reunification language is breaking down. The South Korean government disclosed on Wednesday last week that North Korea’s constitutional revision in March had deleted references to reunification and added a territorial clause defining its border with South Korea. South Korea is also seriously debating whether national reunification with North Korea is still necessary. On April 27, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung marked the eighth anniversary of the Panmunjom Declaration, the 2018 inter-Korean agreement in which the two Koreas pledged to
I wrote this before US President Donald Trump embarked on his uneventful state visit to China on Thursday. So, I shall confine my observations to the joint US-Philippine military exercise of April 20 through May 8, known collectively as “Balikatan 2026.” This year’s Balikatan was notable for its “firsts.” First, it was conducted primarily with Taiwan in mind, not the Philippines or even the South China Sea. It also showed that in the Pacific, America’s alliance network is still robust. Allies are enthusiastic about America’s renewed leadership in the region. Nine decades ago, in 1936, America had neither military strength
RSS