The effects of the Sunflower movement continue to be felt even after the protesters have left the legislature. Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairman Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) and former premier Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) both announced on Monday that they will not contest the party’s chairmanship election. In an instant, the heated competition between Su, Hsieh and former DPP chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) turned into an expression of party unity and support for Tsai.
The DPP was unable to direct or manipulate the demonstrations against the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government’s handling of the cross-strait service trade agreement, instead being reduced to providing protection, assistance and logistical support. Although the party’s ideas are close to those of the protesters, that the DPP, Taiwan’s second-largest political party, was unable to join the front lines of the movement and lead, direct or influence protesters and instead had to passively react to their demands and stand behind them has had a great impact on the party.
Su’s announcement that he is dropping out of the chairmanship election shows an understanding of the current political situation and a capacity for reflection that is becoming of a political leader. Facing the challenges of future civic movements, cross-strait relations, the year-end seven-in-one local elections and a generational change is not an easy task, and Tsai will have to shoulder a heavy load.
The protests were aimed at the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), but while the KMT continues to act as if nothing has happened, it is the DPP that has picked itself up.
As the students wrapped up their protest, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) continued his battle with Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) by appealing the Taipei District Court’s decision that Wang could retain his KMT membership, ignoring Wang’s rising popularity after he persuaded the students to evacuate the legislature, while Ma was unable to come up with any kind of response.
Not only is Ma’s popularity in Taiwan in the doldrums, even international media are critical of him. In addition, he is ignoring calls within his own party for party unity and to patch things up with Wang.
Wang promised the students that the agreement will only be reviewed after legislation regulating the oversight of cross-strait agreements has been passed, which resulted in Ma immediately issuing a statement saying that he wanted exactly what Wang wanted. However, the next day he instructed the party’s legislative caucus to continue with the review while an oversight act is being formulated.
Sunflower leader Chen Wei-ting (陳為廷) responded that the activists had not reached a settlement with Ma and KMT caucus whip Lin Hung-chih (林鴻池) tendered his resignation.
Regardless of how loud the protests are and that both domestic and international media see the agreement as dead in the water, Ma remains in his ivory tower, where he dreams about passing the agreement and negotiating an agreement on trade in goods.
Ma is a lame-duck president, and does not face the pressure of future elections. He can ignore the voices of 500,000 protesters and that his party could lose the votes of the younger generation en masse.
Although he is a dinosaur and it might take some time for signals of any kind to reach his brain, other KMT politicians still have to deal with political realities in the wake of the Sunflower movement.
If the KMT is unable to respond to the challenge of dealing with a leader who is out of touch with public opinion and wants to avoid a disaster of titanic proportions, that challenge will spell the end of the KMT as we know it.
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