The election for chairperson of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), for which campaigning is currently underway, is very unusual. What makes it unusual is not the fact that there are five candidates standing for the post — a record number for the DPP — nor the anxiety expressed by many party members at the start of the race, but that it has centered around seeking amnesty for former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁).
On the day the candidates were due to present their policies in the first debate, six DPP county commissioners and mayors issued a joint statement urging the candidates to put unity first, present their platforms in a rational way and desist from personal attacks.
The message this gave was that solving internal problems is the DPP’s top priority at this moment. However, a party that is only concerned with handling its internal problems will find it hard to inspire enthusiastic support among the public, and even among its own members.
There is indeed a clear contrast between the last election for the DPP chairmanship in 2008 and the present one. The 2008 election was held in the wake of successive major defeats for the DPP in presidential and legislative elections, and influential senior party figures were not very interested in the post of chairperson. Nevertheless, grassroots party members who did not want to see the DPP fade into oblivion did care and got actively involved in campaigning.
The situation now is rather different.
In January’s presidential election, the DPP managed to get its candidate, Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), just 800,000 votes shy of her Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) rival, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九). In the four months since that election, a lot of people have come to strongly regret having voted for the wrong person.
Although Ma was voted in for a second term, he is now more unpopular than ever. This presents a great opportunity for the DPP, changing the attitude of senior party members toward the chairperson election. While some of them have chosen to stand as candidates, others have gotten actively involved in campaigning to influence the election.
In spite of this, party members in general are a lot less enthusiastic this time around. The most enthusiastic and active ones are Chen’s supporters. As a result of their efforts, the recent election debate turned into a rally to save Chen, and that is what is really unique about this election.
Even though the public and DPP members gave the debate a cool reception, Chen was very pleased with it. His office released a statement expressing its gratitude to the five candidates for stating their unified support of him. During the debate, four of the five candidates explicitly called for Chen to be given a presidential amnesty. Only one former premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌), took a more moderate position by proposing that Chen could be saved by allowing him to receive medical attention outside the prison.
Before January’s presidential election, Chen’s supporters were pinning their hopes for his salvation on the prospect of Tsai winning the presidency. They thought that Chen’s conviction for corruption was an act of political oppression, so there would be no point in asking Ma to pardon him. They also knew that talking about amnesty would not be good for the party’s prospects in the national elections, so during the campaign they were against calling for amnesty. Contrary to their expectations, however, the DPP lost the elections.
Following this defeat, Chen’s supporters did a complete about-face and started demanding that Ma give Chen amnesty. During the DPP chairperson debate, there were plenty of calls to save Chen and endless criticism of Ma, but apart from that, the candidates hardly engaged in any other policy issues. Consequently, the public got only the vaguest impression of what policies the candidates actually support. This would explain why people’s reaction to the debate has been so cool.
If Chen’s conviction was politically motivated, then his supporters should be protesting, instead of pleading for amnesty. This is basic moral integrity. DPP Legislator Chiu Yi-ying (邱議瑩) was right when she observed that none of the comrades who were sent to jail after the 1979 Kaohsiung Incident begged for mercy or asked for amnesty even when some of their families broke up, relatives died or they found themselves destitute — they all stood firm and fearless.
The other possibility is that Chen’s conviction was legitimate. If so, he could persuade the public to support him by owning up to his wrongdoings and repenting. Then he might get amnesty on the back of this public support.
However, it is important to note that in the case of amnesty the country’s rulers are not expected to admit that the person in question was wrongly convicted. All it means is that they feel pity for the imprisoned person — let’s be clear about that.
The situation now is that Chen’s supporters are calling for amnesty, but cannot give a clear reason why. In addition the calls for amnesty do not enjoy support from the majority of the people. Is it likely that Ma would forget about potential votes and let Chen go just because he felt sorry for him? Hardly. Thus, as Su said, begging for amnesty for Chen is just asking to be humiliated over and over. Yet Chen and his supporters insist on doing just that.
Maybe the candidates think that most DPP members do support pardoning Chen, so espousing this will help them get elected as party leader. If the candidates think this, they have misjudged the members of the DPP. Su is the only one of the candidates who has not called for Chen to be amnestied, but his popularity surged more than all the others after the debate. In contrast, the candidates who talked most about amnesty for Chen were the ones whose popularity dropped the furthest.
Is amnesty for Chen a good demand to be making? It is worth recalling what Tsai said after she was elected as chairperson of the DPP in 2008. She said a heavy price had been paid for the things Chen had done during his two terms as president, and that the DPP’s biggest problem was that during those eight years it forfeited its image and lost the public’s trust.
Tsai said the DPP had a big problem with inner-party discipline and promised that she would be a reasonable chairperson and always act in accordance with the law. Based on what she said, people felt Tsai could revive the party’s fortunes, and her speech received applause from both within and outside the party.
A party must demonstrate moral integrity and the ability to distinguish right from wrong. If it cannot do that, people are unlikely to entrust to it their hopes and aspirations.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US