Parties from the “third political force” — including the Green Party Taiwan, the New Power Party and the Social Democratic Party — seemed to be viable choices for those who are tired of the bipartisan politics of the past decades. However, now that the legislative election is only half a year away, the performances of these alternatives have become quite worrisome.
Most of the founders of these alternative political parties have been involved in different social movements for a long time, so it is certainly a good thing for them to become involved in real politics, with the objective of bringing about changes to society. However, in founding political parties, they have become politicians, and they should realize that politicians and activists are not the same, and therefore they should act accordingly.
One of the biggest challenges these politicians face might be the division of force. While there is a great deal of social support for the ideas represented by these smaller parties, voters are still more likely to vote for the mainstream political parties, sometimes out of concern that they might “waste” their vote by supporting an alternative party.
Convincing voters is already a big problem, but the situation only gets worse, as there are several parties with similar political beliefs. Even if voters are determined to vote for smaller political parties, their votes could still end up divided among the plethora of choices, resulting in none of these parties garnering enough votes to pass the 5 percent threshold for representation.
For those familiar with social movements in Taiwan, it is not surprising to see the divisions in these smaller parties. Most Taiwanese social activists are strictly loyal to their own beliefs and are quick to find differences between themselves and others. As a result, it is rather common to see different groups advocating issues that are similar in nature.
While it is a good thing for social activists to stay true to their beliefs, unfortunately, that is not how politics work. Politicians must know how to make allies and concessions, as long as they do not compromise their core beliefs.
Another issue for these activists-turned-politicians is staying connected with the public. Although there are quite a few politicians from these alternative parties who are good public speakers, many of them still speak in a way that is only understood within activist circles, employing terms and phrases that are unfamiliar to the general public. If they want to convince voters to support them, they have to first learn to speak in a language the public can understand.
The third issue facing these smaller parties is organization. While it is understandable that they might lack the resources and experience that mainstream political parties count on, the founders of most of the alternative parties have experience organizing civic groups, so they should perform better than they have been.
For instance, at least one of these alternative parties still has not appointed an official spokesperson, making it almost impossible for the media to get official comments from the party when needed. With less than six months left before the election, it needs to realize that time is running out for it to promote itself.
Politics can be dirty, but it is necessary in a democracy. Many social activists have chosen to stay away from politics out of disappointment with the system. However, those that have decided to be involved must learn how to play the game and maintain their beliefs.
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