President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) and the Cabinet’s disapproval ratings have increased, according to a survey released by Taiwan Thinktank last month. While this may be cause for concern for the Democratic Progressive Party government, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is not winning brownie points for its actions.
Some analysts see the dip in Tsai’s popularity as a normal reaction following the January presidential and legislative elections and her inauguration in May. Nonetheless, some of her administration’s reform initiatives — from transitional justice (dealing with ill-gotten party assets and justice for Aborigines) to pension and labor rights — have indeed sent a hint of rising tensions and seeming polarization between groups.
There is no doubt that changes unsettle vested interests and it remains to be seen how well and far the administration can carry out substantial reforms, but the government’s vacillation and unpreparedness on certain issues signals a lack of communication within the government and with the public.
The deferral of a new labor regulation requiring employers to give workers at least one day off for every six days worked — which had been due to take effect on Monday — is one example.
Unlike the proposed “one fixed day off and one flexible rest day” policy — which has encountered stiff opposition and needs further negotiations — the “work six days, take one day off” regulation was meant to address an arbitrary interpretation of the Labor Standards Act (勞動基準法) as sanctioning 12 straight working days between two days off (which ostensibly conforms to the rule that requires one day off in seven days).
The abrupt suspension of the plan to follow through what the law from the outset was intended to protect — two days before its slated implementation — was a “flip-flop” indeed. The government said the halt was to allow further coordination with certain industries, but if communication is really needed, it should have been done weeks, if not months, ago.
The government’s initial tough response to an international court’s South China Sea ruling and then later downplaying the issue likewise showed it was caught off-guard. As a result, it failed to play its crucial role of keeping the public well-informed about how the ruling could or could not affect Taiwan’s rights, sovereignty and position.
The Tsai administration’s “caution,” if not hesitation, on these issues has provided ammunition for the KMT, which has seized every opportunity to attack the government. Curiously, though, the KMT’s criticism does not seem to have helped boost its own standing.
A visit by KMT lawmakers to workers staging a hunger strike over the “fixed days off” issue was snubbed, with many seeing the move as disingenuous and politically motivated, considering the KMT’s record in siding with big corporations and its image as a wealthy party.
The KMT’s implicit call for an alliance with Beijing on the South China Sea dispute and its explicit call for contributions of “one [NT] dollar a person for the fishermen” facing fines for sailing to Itu Aba Island (Taiping Island, 太平島) only showed how detached it is from mainstream public opinion. Not surprisingly, the calls have failed to garner public support, with some asking: “Why don’t you help pay the fishermen’s fines with your party assets?”
The criticisms showered on Tsai’s apology to Aboriginal groups on Monday have also not been an inflection point for the KMT.
The KMT could have applauded Tsai for apologizing — something that KMT governments have never done — to show its sincerity. Instead, its chairwoman chose to question Tsai’s motives and claimed that the apology was an attempt at “desinicization to replace a Han-centered historical perspective with a perspective centered on Aboriginal people.”
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath