A basketball game is not a contest if both teams decide to play defense and do not attack. It is even worse when both sides play not to win, but to not lose. Unfortunately, it appears that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) are just doing that.
Perhaps this explains why in a recent opinion poll conducted by Taiwan Indicators Survey Research, the KMT garnered the support of only 18.9 percent of those polled, with the DPP not faring much better at 30.7 percent, with 57 percent of respondents saying they were not satisfied with the DPP’s performance.
In other words, people are as indifferent to both parties as basketball fans who find that two teams playing defense against each other are hard to cheer.
The KMT’s passivity is perhaps more understandable. The approval rating of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who also serves as KMT chairman, has plummeted to as low as 13 percent. Almost all of Ma’s policies, among them fuel and electricity price increases and healthcare reform, have been highly unpopular and questionable.
The party always talks about reform, but rarely takes action to uphold fairness and justice. It failed to ensure social justice in the design of the capital gains tax on securities transactions and protected poorly managed state-owned enterprises, missing a golden opportunity to address the widening wealth gap and a divided society.
Ma and his party talk a good game, but fail to execute and deliver time and again. These failures are perhaps why they no longer go into “attack mode” to lay out substantial plans to benefit the nation, because the more they do, the more they fail.
They neither listen to the public nor seem ready to reconcile with the opposition to work together in the national interest, as Ma stated in his New Year’s address.
The KMT no longer appears to be functioning as a well-oiled machine, with many members reportedly unhappy with Ma’s leadership and communication skills. The only reason they have not yet challenged Ma is that they are biding their time.
While the KMT seems to have good reason to play defense, the DPP’s passivity, which has earned the party the label of being soft, has made people scratch their heads in bewilderment.
The DPP has been criticized for its inaction as well as for its failure to present substantial countermeasures to Ma’s failing policies. The criticism may be unfair, in particular for the DPP caucus, because almost all of its proposals have been blocked by the KMT in the legislature.
Nevertheless, despite presenting an economic policy to counter Ma’s pro-China economic policies, DPP headquarters could have done a better job by making the vague plan for a sensible economy more comprehensive and by explaining it in layman’s terms.
While provoking conflict is never to be encouraged, the DPP should perhaps be thinking about adopting tougher strategies against Ma’s inaction and refusal to listen and communicate. After all, the DPP needs to convince people that it deserves another opportunity to take power.
The most serious concern about the “both-sides-playing-defense” phenomenon is that it indicates that both parties are motivated by political gain, not the needs of the people.
When cynical political calculation rules the day, it is irrelevant which party is in power.
The National Immigration Agency on Monday confirmed that the majority of foreign residents in Taiwan would once again be excluded from the government’s stimulus voucher program. The NT$5,000 Quintuple Stimulus Voucher would be available to 140,000 foreign spouses of Taiwanese and 16,000 Alien Permanent Resident Certificate holders, but about 870,000 Alien Resident Certificate (ARC) holders would be excluded from the program, regardless of whether they pay taxes. The government has not offered any explanation, but some have speculated that the intention is to prevent migrant workers from receiving the vouchers. Many migrant workers are from Southeast Asian countries and work as
Within the span of a generation, a new super-rich class emerges from a society in which millions of rural migrants toiled away in factories for a pittance. Bribery becomes the most common mode of influence in politics. Opportunists speculate recklessly in land and real estate. Financial risks simmer as local governments borrow to finance railways and other large infrastructure projects. All of this is happening in the world’s most promising emerging market and rising global power. No, this is not a description of contemporary China, but rather of the US during the Gilded Age, from about 1870 to 1900. This
I first met Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) in 1999, when I was Acting Director of AIT, as Darryl Johnson had just left and Ray Burghardt had not yet arrived. She was a young aide for then-President Lee Teng-hui (李登輝). President Lee just had enunciated a new theory, which came to be known as the “state-to-state” principle, in an interview with a German newspaper. Beijing had predictably gone berserk and was trying to get Washington to come down heavily on President Lee. In the midst of all this, Tsai and I met to discuss the situation. I took a liking to this
It might have been an inelegantly, even ineptly, executed pivot, gratuitously alienating key allies, but by leaving Afghanistan and forming a security pact with Australia and the UK in the Indo-Pacific, US President Joe Biden has at least cleared the decks to focus on his great foreign policy challenge — the systemic rivalry with China. Yet the concern now is how quickly this rivalry could escalate, especially regarding Taiwan. The linchpin of the US alliance system in south-east Asia, Taiwan is the biggest island in the first island chain, the group of islands that keeps China blocked in. It is China’s