In the Internet age, no one is qualified to criticize the younger generation for how much they know, or understand, or how they process information. Rather, technologically incompetent generations should ask themselves whether they are stuck in the age of rote-learning from school textbooks.
The information age is the archenemy of Leninist political parties, as it is the best solution for dealing with underhanded politicians who talk rubbish and deceive people with misinformation and half-truths. Members of the younger generation, who have grown up in this age, are adept at processing information and using it as a tool to enhance their education, imagination and creativity, to realize their potential and develop their skills. A person’s age can no longer be used as an arbiter of how much that person “understands.”
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has never been able to shake off its Leninist ways. It still believes in the primacy of seniority, and requires that young people should do as they are told and follow the rules. As far as the KMT mentality goes, party members could get a share of the pie only if they show due loyalty to the party and the state. Political parties that only care for their vested interests have little time for reform that benefits ordinary people.
In the 1960s, when Western books and magazines became available in Taiwan, members of the young intellectual elite started demanding participation in the political process.
However, the KMT had other ideas, saying such things as “life begins at 70.” If anyone disagreed with their point of view, senior party members would say: “Why are you in such a hurry?” or: “What do you know anyway?”
In those days, when young Taiwanese wanted to be part of the political process to determine their future, they found themselves largely impotent in the face of the “10,000-year legislature,” consisting of permanent legislators who were not elected — a situation that went on for 43 years.
Today, although legislators are elected by popular vote, little has changed, as new KMT legislators continue to toe the party line and follow directives handed down by the central KMT organization. They would not know what reform looked like even if it hit them in the face. They have been blocking reform for 23 years.
The KMT fossils, who have come thus far relying on illegally acquired party assets and by lying to the public, are being exposed in the Internet age.
The Internet is a great way of disseminating information and mobilizing people, and the KMT is falling apart under its gaze, like a vampire burning under a rising sun.
KMT Chairman and presidential candidate Eric Chu (朱立倫) considers himself among a new generation of up-and-coming KMT leaders and wants to distinguish himself, to a certain degree, from the older generation, although he clings to old ways of doing things.
Chu was not trying to appeal to the younger generation when he weaved an elaborate story about how he was convinced to step forward as the party’s presidential candidate, saying he was moved to replace the previous candidate Deputy Legislative Speaker Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) by the words of an old woman in Tamshui. How curious that he made a major decision concerning the fate of the party-state based on the words of a stranger.
Chu’s KMT colleagues are hardly the kind of people who would appreciate the younger generation for their understanding of important affairs.
It is no surprise that young tech-savvy, Internet age voters are planning to do some ousting of their own come the election on Saturday next week.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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