On the heels of his defeat in the presidential election, Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) resigned as Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman. Then, at risk to his reputation, he withdrew his resignation and agreed to stay on until May 25.
The temporary chairman will have to shoulder the burden of rebuilding the party's morale after two consecutive election losses, review party affairs and pave the way for his replacement.
This is a heavy responsibility and involves a lot of work.
Party members have not voiced reluctance following last weekend's election to look at what went wrong. The main problem has been the absence of a chairman, which meant that no one could convene a meeting. Hsieh's decision to stay on should now make it possible to launch that process.
So what did, indeed, go wrong? During its eight years in power, many of the DPP's founding ideals were abandoned, mostly as a result of power struggles. Its rise to power led many of its leaders to develop ties with corporations and initiate policies that catered to big business. This led to accusations of corruption, hurting the party's reputation as diligent, uncorrupt and pro-Taiwan and triggered an exodus of supporters.
The economy did grow over the eight years the DPP was in power, but the wealth generated was unevenly distributed, only benefiting the wealthy while leaving the lower and disadvantaged classes behind. The DPP's inability to resolve that unequal distribution and other public welfare issues had negative repercussions.
Another area where things went wrong was party stability. The DPP government was led by no less than seven premiers and the Cabinet was frequently reshuffled, resulting in a lack of continuity and an inability to plan for the future, which, coupled with obstruction by the opposition-controlled legislature, led to a poor political record.
Power also fed egoism, leading some to seek to satisfy their interests -- or those of their faction within the party -- rather than the nation's. Infighting and the inability to unite during the presidential election led to rumors that President Chen Shui-bian (
Although the DPP works democratically, factional conflict created problems with the nomination of party members. To eliminate the competition and ostensibly to maintain ideological "purity," internal opinion polls became part of the process to nominate a presidential candidate, which resulted in the exclusion of middle-of-the-road supporters. Not only did this narrow the party's choices and make it impossible to nominate the most competitive candidate, but it also had a negative impact on the election.
The negative coverage that this created has made the younger generations reluctant to join the party, which threatens to deprive it of the new blood it will need if it is to be relevant.
The DPP must review and deal with all the challenges that it faces. This is not only the responsibility of the party chairman, but a historic task that all party members, present and future, must take on.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath