Although former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Hsu Hsin-liang (許信良) is the least likely candidate to win the party’s presidential nomination, he was the one who received the most attention when the three candidates recently presented their campaign platforms. Hsu’s participation in the primary will be a powerful catalyst to increase the pressure on the party’s other presidential hopefuls, Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) and Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), to listen to and incorporate the many competing ideas that are being debated within the party.
On the final day of registration for the party primary, Hsu borrowed the money to pay the NT$5 million (US$172,000) registration fee and instantly interjected a new variable to the competition between Su and Tsai. Hsu said he entered so he too could have the chance to express himself because he feels he has something important to add to the discussion.
Hsu’s political career has experienced many ups and downs and his participation in the nation’s political reform is legendary. He started out as a star in the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), but was later branded a traitor. He was an important leader of the dangwai — outside the party — movement and the Formosa magazine, after which he was forced out of Taiwan and blacklisted by the government.
In his first stint as chairman of the DPP in 1992 and 1993, he struck a deal with then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) that had a great impact on the constitutional amendments introducing direct presidential elections. He belongs to the DPP camp favoring deeper engagement with China and has advocated a “bravely go west” policy, setting off a debate within the party. In the end, his dream of becoming president caused him to leave the DPP, and now that dream has brought him back again.
Although Hsu is an incurable optimist who wants to grab his last opportunity to fulfill his dream of becoming president, he must know that his chances of winning the DPP’s nomination are slim, not to mention his odds of beating incumbent President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九). Hsu is the consummate opportunist always looking to stir things up. The NT$5 million registration fee bought him great political advertising — not only has he now told the world that Hsu Hsin-liang is still around, he has highlighted the vibrancy of the democratic atmosphere in the DPP which allows the party to tolerate differing opinions and showed that the DPP is not afraid of consolidating its leadership by letting an incumbent and two former party leaders run for the party’s presidential nomination.
Hsu’s candidacy not only pressures Su and Tsai, it also impacts on Ma. Compared with the vibrancy of the DPP primary, the KMT appears to be as lively as a bunch of stiffs. Although Ma’s popularity has dropped to just more than 30 percent — now consisting only of hardened pan-blue supporters — no one dares stand up and challenge him by disagreeing with his one-sided pro-China policies, his economic policies that are widening the wealth gap, his nuclear energy and industrial policies that harm the nation’s natural environment, the way he always apologizes for mistakes after the fact instead of managing things properly beforehand, or by saying that Ma lacks the necessary executive skills.
We have seen how Legislative Speaker Wang Jyn-ping (王金平) was accused of connections to organized crime when he challenged Ma’s candidacy for the party chairmanship and how he remains under pressure today. The KMT essentially remains the -Leninist-style revolutionary party from 80 years ago.
Hsu will almost certainly not be able to build enough momentum to win the nomination, but at least someone like him exists in the DPP and the party has the democratic maturity to tolerate his presence and voice. No such person exists in the KMT, nor does it have the democratic tolerance to allow someone like Hsu to enter the debate.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS