Over the past month, former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Lin I-hsiung (林義雄) made two calls, demanding that the DPP yield more legislative electoral districts to the candidates of the “third political force,” and that the incumbent DPP city and county councilors refrain from joining legislative elections in January. This has been seen as Lin’s endorsement of the newly formed political parties.
Not only did Lin use his status as a former leader of the DPP to pressure DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), he also forced one of the party’s legislative candidates, newly elected Taipei city councillor Liang Wen-chieh (梁文傑), to give up his legislative bid. For the opposition parties whose shared goal is to prevent the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) from winning more than half of the legislative seats, the calls by Lin, who is often called the spiritual leader of the pan-green camp, have become a hot potato that the opposition parties find difficult to deal with.
In terms of Lin’s demand that the DPP yield legislative election opportunities, the question is whether he can speak for the New Power Party (NPP) and the Social Democratic Party (SDP), which both split from Taiwan Citizens’ Union (TCU). Should the two parties accept Lin’s good intentions; are his remarks a blessing or a burden for these parties; should they take responsibility for any inappropriate remarks that are out of their control? As they are dealing with a man from an older generation, it would not be entirely appropriate to draw too clear a line between the senior politician and themselves. And for the NPP, which is closer to him, this poses a dilemma.
As for the SDP, it aims to appeal to voters who do not support the DPP or the more radical Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU). The SDP attracts those who are trying to maintain their accumulated wealth, hoping that no political turbulence would affect the economy. A more difficult problem is that it is targeting a relatively conservative social class, so the question is if it can convince voters to support policies such as the abolition of the death penalty and diverse family structures.
The NPP aims to attract voters who pay attention to a diverse range of issues, as civic awareness has surged in recent years. It is close to the SDP on the political spectrum judging from both parties’ support for same-sex marriage and the abolition of the death penalty, although it tends to play it a bit more safe on such sensitive issues. However, playing safe implies that it lacks character. How will it distinguish itself from the DPP and SDP without a creative brand of its own? This is the party’s most urgent task.
To be frank, pan-green supporters are likely to vote for the DPP or the TSU no matter what. They are merely using the NPP and the SDP as a tool to confuse moderate voters, hoping to disunite those neutral, rational and objective moderate voters who lean slightly toward the pan-blue camp. Since the NPP and the SDP are being used as tools, why do pro-green voters continue to mock and even attack them over Lin’s demand that the DPP yield more seats to them?
The NPP and the SDP need to rid themselves of the habit of worshiping those senior politicians as gods. When a bird’s wings mature, it needs to fly on its own. Democratic parties like them should reform this old Chinese feudal thinking. Whether the DPP should yield legislative seats should be decided through elections, although that might be a bit unfair considering the differences in resources.
As for the NPP and the SDP that had split from the TCU, some have suggested that the two parties form a new party to attract votes in the legislative elections. This method would not necessarily mean that one plus one equals one or even more. Basically, those who cast their party votes for small parties are a progressive and thoughtful group that expects a third force able to counterbalance the nation’s two-party politics.
There is no reason they should not cast their party votes for the Green Party as it has had great accomplishments these past few years, or for the TSU, which has worked hard to safeguard Taiwan’s sovereignty. Even if the two parties move to form a new single party, once that party passes the party vote threshold and gains a legislator-at-large seat, negotiations over the seat would lead to yet another round of fighting.
The rashly established new parties are advancing and fighting at the same time. Their legislative candidates usually unite for shared ideals, but prior to joining hands, these intellectual elites worked better independently. As these new parties are still taking shape, it is not easy for them to “tame” outstanding talent. The new parties have neither resources nor benefits, but they do have grand, abstract ideals. It is only possible for those great talent to submit themselves to the party line if party officials can find the right way. Otherwise, during the highly competitive legislative campaign, their candidates could get out of control, violate the parties’ ideals and even hurt their allied parties.
The NPP and the SDP are close to the DPP on the political spectrum, and so far they have either supported or complemented one another, with the two smaller parties inevitably been seen as the big party’s subordinates. That being so, the smaller parties could propose concrete and feasible policies, so voters can see their policies, rather than their political stars.
The DPP has long been a mature party and it is pleasing to see that it is ready to rule again. Perhaps the NPP and the SDP can refine their shared policies and present them in a concrete way. They should act like gentlemen rather than sarcastic netizens who hold each other back.
Froggy Lim is a lecturer in the Research and Development Center of Idea Generation in Reading and Writing at Providence University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with