“Where to go from here?” pan-green supporters pondered on election night, as many burst into tears following Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) defeated presidential bid, after she conceded and announced her resignation as DPP chairperson.
Following the disappointing result, it would be easy to let gloom take hold and to start feeling pessimistic about the nation’s future in terms of the development of pro-localization policies and the fight for social justice — a position championed by the DPP and vociferously argued for during the just-concluded electoral campaign.
However, as Tsai put it so well during her concession speech, her supporters must not get depressed over the result of one election.
“It’s okay to cry, but not to lose heart. It’s okay to feel sad, but not to give up. We must stay hopeful, brave and keep fighting for Taiwan,” Tsai said.
From a broader perspective, first of all, it was laudable that the nation has demonstrated itself to be a mature democracy, in which Saturday’s presidential and legislative elections ended peacefully and voters dealt with the election results rationally.
At the party level, although Tsai was defeated by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) by about 6 percent of the votes, a closer look at the electoral numbers suggests the DPP nonetheless fought a respectable battle, considering that a mere four years ago it was crushed by Ma by a 2.2 million-vote margin in a landslide victory.
That Ma’s winning margin slipped from 2.2 million votes in 2008 to 790,000 votes this year serves as an encouraging sign for the pro-localization party that Tsai’s campaign must have done many things right to woo more than 1 million votes away from the KMT.
Without a doubt, a certain level of post-election analysis and evaluation is needed for the DPP to review the reasons for its loss in the presidential election.
Some have been quick to regard Tsai’s loss as the defeat of her proposed “Taiwan consensus” and asked whether the DPP should turn around and embrace the so-called “1992 consensus” trumpeted by Ma and the KMT.
However, it is a bad idea to lose sight of reality or to go overboard in self-recrimination.
If the presidential election was a referendum on the “1992 consensus,” as has been suggested in some quarters, and the result suggests the Ma administration’s cross-strait policy is right, then how would one explain that the Taiwan Solidarity Union, the party that most adamantly rejects the existence of the “1992 consensus,” managed to take 8.69 percent of the party vote — a massive surge from its 3.53 percent share in the last legislative elections?
To quote legendary basketball player Michael Jordan: “I’ve missed more than 9,000 shots in my career. I’ve lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times, I’ve been trusted to take the game-winning shot and missed. I’ve failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.”
The 2012 presidential and legislative elections may be over, but rather than lose heart, the DPP must take to heart the desires and expectations of the 6.09 million people who cast their votes for Tsai, in the expectation that the party will continue to push its core values of pursuing social justice and fairness for the entire nation.
The Comedy Club on Fuxing N Road in Taipei was vandalized with paint bombs mixed with feces on May 29, allegedly because one of its performers had satirized Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The incident has triggered concerns about the growing threat from China’s cross-border repression within Taiwan. On the day of the attack, a comedian surnamed Huang (黃), who is known for mocking Xi, was the headline performer. The Comedy Club founder said the assault was obviously politically motivated. China, which Freedom House said “conducts the most sophisticated, extensive and far-reaching campaign of transnational repression in the world,” has
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson Zhu Fenglian (朱鳳蓮) at a press conference last week repeated the same, tired line, claiming that Taiwan’s future should be “decided jointly by the more than 1.4 billion Chinese people, including Taiwan compatriots.” The statement is absurd. Virtually every word is incorrect, with some parts mistaken to an astonishing degree. First, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never included Taiwan. When the Republic of China’s (ROC) original five-colored flag was established in 1912, Taiwan was still under Japanese rule. When the PRC was founded in 1949, Taiwan was under the control of president Chiang
Following the outbreak of conflict in Iran, TikTok was flooded with videos targeting Taiwanese users. Many featured artificial intelligence (AI)-generated anchors posing as Taiwanese broadcasters with localized traditional Chinese subtitles. The videos warned of imminent social collapse due to liquefied natural gas shortages, blamed the Democratic Progressive Party and its alleged failed energy policies for a fabricated crisis, and used recycled footage from unrelated events to create the impression Taiwan stood on the edge of systemic breakdown. By saturating the information environment with falsehoods or selectively edited material designed to trigger emotional responses, malign actors can exploit cognitive vulnerabilities and
Taiwan’s leading position in the global semiconductor industry is not, as some claim, based on misconceptions, a result of “stealing.” It was built upon formal, transparent and costly technology transfer agreements between the Taiwanese government and US enterprises half a century ago. According to the oral history of Hu Ding-hua (胡定華), a pioneer in Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, the origin of Taiwan’s integrated circuit (IC) technology dates back to the “IC pilot factory” in the 1970s. The implementation of this project fully complied with international commercial standards and legal procedures. First, the project completed formal contract signing and payment. In 1975,
RSS