Michael Turton (Letters, Jan. 30, page 8) accuses me in my comments about the recent elections in Taiwan (Letters, Jan. 24, page 8) of spleen, banality and complete lack of discernment.
What can I say? If my censure of the insolence habitually directed at some half of Taiwan's voters by certain commentators; my concern for the livelihoods of Taiwanese citizens and the nation's economy; and my desire for "the emergence of a wise, equitable and progressive civic discourse in Taiwan" is "splenetic" then yes, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I stand before you guilty -- and unapologetic -- of venting my spleen.
I really don't want to start a fight with Turton, but as much as anything I don't think this is about my views being incomprehensible or wholly uninformed, but rather about the fact that I didn't a priori comply with Turton's views.
I simply pointed out that the DPP lost the legislative elections and needed to learn something from this; that I had heard many people express concern about the economy before the elections; and that, as noted above, too many people are launching too many insults at Taiwanese.
I find much of Turton's analysis -- complaints about election outcomes and politicking conditions that are in fact common in democracies worldwide and in many respects firmly supported by democratic theory -- to be unconvincing.
In particular, I find dubious the claim that the KMT exploited its grassroots supporters to steal a victory in the election.
Yes, such connections are subject to abuse, but I defer to former US senator Tip O'Neill, who observed that "all politics is local" -- an observation recognized as one of the great steps in waking politicians to the needs of real citizens.
In any case, accessing the grassroots support of the people is one of the fundamental exigencies of responsive politics and if the KMT is doing this better than the DPP, the latter can learn from their example.
One of Turton's claims, however, really gets my goat. "What Taiwanese voters value most are not policy issues but personalized service," he writes.
Again, we can see his point, but in sum, what Turton implies is that Taiwanese voters concern themselves more about a plate of free beef noodles and a little questionable assistance with a legal problem than the education of their children, the state of their economy, the environment they live in, crime and public order, the cost of housing, infrastructure development, etc. Such a claim I will not abide by.
Ultimately, I would be more inclined to agree with Jerome Keating -- whatever his political view -- when he wrote that the KMT "is not monolithic. Contrasting viewpoints abound and power struggles continue beneath the surface."
Such a view undermines Turton's apocalyptic prediction of a "permanent majority."
In any event, I am not endorsing or criticizing any one party.
Rather, I am trying to point out that respect for the various viewpoints in this country, to say nothing of more empathetic, impartial and tolerant attitudes toward Taiwanese voters and their issues (yes, their issues) is necessary to make progress in this country.
David Pendery
Taipei
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
As the highest elected official in the nation’s capital, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate-in-waiting for a presidential bid. With the exception of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕), Chiang is the most likely KMT figure to take over the mantle of the party leadership. All the other usual suspects, from Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have already been rejected at the ballot box. Given such high expectations, Chiang should be demonstrating resolve, calm-headedness and political wisdom in how he faces tough
RSS