With survey after survey showing abysmal numbers, it is by now pretty clear that the general sentiment regarding the performance of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his Cabinet is overwhelmingly negative. While the opposition sees such dissatisfaction as a tremendous opportunity to regain power, it would be a grave mistake to assume that the current situation will automatically translate into votes for them.
Above all, the public feels it has been let down by Ma and his less-than-stellar group of Cabinet officials, and the willingness of Taiwanese to continue buying Ma’s promises about a brighter future is wearing thin. One can only wait so long for Godot.
As Ma’s popularity rating approaches the single-digit zone, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is naturally feeling elated, seeing this as a sign of possible major gains in the seven-in-one elections in 2014 and the more distant presidential election in 2016.
However, while this indeed creates an opportunity for the DPP, it also adds new responsibilities, including the need for the pan-green camp to give Taiwanese hope about the future of their nation. Simply bashing the president when he is at his most vulnerable, or calling for a Cabinet reshuffle, is not enough. In fact, doing so would probably ensure that, low numbers notwithstanding, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) will perform better than expected in 2014 and prevail again in 2016.
Giving hope entails presenting policy alternatives that are clearly communicated to the public and relevant to people’s welfare. Making headway will involve a thorough, and by no means easy, rejuvenation of the party through new leadership that looks to the future rather than the past. For this to come about, the party will need to be led not by extraordinary individuals who did extraordinary things 30 years ago, but by young people, whose future and country are shaped by the decisions made today.
The DPP will have to do much more to cultivate young talent, and youth programs that involve top-down lecturing by party officials — which tends to permanently turn young people off politics — is not how to go about it. It is of little surprise that the ongoing student mobilization against media monopolization — the largest and most comprehensive youth movement in three decades — has remained distant from political parties, including the DPP, which shares their concerns about freedom of speech.
No doubt, the KMT is equally inept at attracting young talent, and its potential candidates for 2016 are rather underwhelming. This would be comforting if all things were equal, but that is the problem — all things are not equal. The DPP does not have the advantage of money and it never will. The personal fortune of Ma’s diplomat-at-large, former vice president Lien Chan (連戰), alone is several times that of the entire pan-green camp, while the disparity in resources between the KMT and the DPP simply boggles the mind. What the DPP therefore needs is the advantage of ideas.
If the DPP is to become a truly relevant party for current and future young generations of Taiwanese, it will have to find ways to appeal to them and give youth the respect they deserve. Only by joining the political experience that comes with age with the idealism and creativity of young minds will the twain come together to present the kind of front that can truly defeat the KMT and meet the challenges presented by China.
The future leaders are among us now, but a longstanding tradition of paternalism is preventing them from finding their voice. One person seems to understand the need to reach out to young people, to inspire them and to equip them with the wisdom that comes with experience. In recent weeks, former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) has toured school campuses to talk and listen to students, and above all to give them hope. For the sake of the DPP’s — and Taiwan’s — future, this is well worth emulating.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
RSS