Lu betrays her factionalism
In a press conference on Tuesday, former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮), said that pursuit of a “generational change” within the leadership had caused the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to lose by 800,000 votes in last month’s presidential election. To rectify the error, she proposed a “lineage perpetuation” (薪火相傳) approach instead.
“Lineage perpetuation” is a traditional biological “seeding” expression that is also associated in Taiwan with the continuation of a family clan. In the context of Lu’s statement it has a double meaning. It suggests, on the one hand, that the old revolutionaries, herself being one of them, had been sidestepped.
On the other hand, it suggests that DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) is an upstart, who was expediently grafted onto the party not too long ago, and is short on legitimacy to represent the DPP. Hence the loss.
We lament the fact that the DPP lost its presidential bid, because we had hoped that it would win. However, to blame the loss on the generational shift within the party is an insidious oversimplification. If we are to find the causes, we can find a million of them, from ballot fixing to high-stakes underground betting, from vote buying to the intervention of the US and China, or even the will of heaven. The range is as wide and as mind-boggling as the great variety of idols housed in the countless temples throughout the country.
At her press conference, Lu also stressed that what the DPP needs is a leader with a strong personality, capable of dealing with problems courageously and decisively.
The underlying message was to challenge and to discredit the outgoing chairperson’s leadership.
Lu acknowledged the problem of factionalism within the DPP. Unfortunately, her very own words betray the factional spirit she hopes to address.
Yang Chun-hui
Utah
Do not play by KMT rules
Recently, former DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) suggested that the party should review its China policy and move toward the center to reduce the unease of swing voters and woo their votes. Hearing this from someone of Hsieh’s caliber, one can only shake one’s head.
What makes the DPP different from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is the DPP’s insistence on Taiwan’s sovereignty, dignity, freedom and democracy when it comes to dealing with China. These differences are quintessential DPP values.
Yes, China is a rising power in terms of its economy, military strength and diplomacy. As the nation is so close to China geographically, Taiwan should take the chance to be a strategic partner of China.
However, it should not put all its eggs in one basket. After all, China is ruled by a single-party authoritarian system and has explicit territorial ambitions toward Taiwan. Relying too much and too deeply on China, the country will fall into China’s trap and the results will write off all of the nation’s achievements.
In addition, the so-called centrists in Taiwan are people who have no strong political ideology. Like most people, they want prosperity and to live with security and stability, but they don’t care who is their master, or if they live in a one-China cage or if they possess other noble, intangible values. No — most of them are ignorant of Taiwanese history and politics. These ignorant people are people the DPP should try to educate and convert, not the other way around.
So much unfairness and injustice occurred during the recent elections. The KMT resorted to many undemocratic and underhand methods to win. Still, the cold fact is that the country’s voters are not mature or wise enough to make an independent and intelligent choice. They are easily moved by coercion by China and bought off by money, and brainwashed 24 hours a day, seven days a week by subliminal information from the pro-China media. That’s why many Hakkas, Aborigines, military personnel, government employees and teachers have negative feelings toward the DPP and will never vote DPP until something is done to change their perceptions.
In light of the current tactics and strategies used by the KMT, the future of the nation’s democracy is bleak and the DPP will probably continue to lose in future elections if it sticks to the KMT’s game rules.
Yang Ji-charng
Columbus, Ohio
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS