After 100 days in office, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has been met with commendation and criticism. As her honeymoon period ends, reality kicks in: This was the case for previous administrations, and it is also the case for Tsai’s administration. A president must be willing to face up to their mistakes and correct them. The worst policy is to only listen to praise and ignore advice and criticism.
Tsai said it herself: “As a leader of this nation, I have no responsibility to appease everyone in turn.”
However, whether Tsai was trying to appease everyone in turn when China Airlines (CAL) flight attendants staged a strike, when former toll collectors held a round-the-clock vigil outside the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) headquarters in Taipei, or when labor campaigners demanded that the Executive Yuan withdraw draft amendments to the Labor Standards Act (勞動基準法) and “return” seven national holidays, is up to the public to decide.
Tsai should listen to public opinion instead of following in the footsteps of former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who relied on his own feeling of achievement to judge how successful his policies were.
It is worth noting that whether Tsai was trying to appease people or not, she certainly did not appease the Taiwan-centric faction, which was the foundation of the DPP’s win in both the presidential and legislative elections in January.
The use of the title “Chinese Taipei” when Taiwan took part in this year’s World Health Assembly, the decision not to campaign for Taiwan’s UN membership, the lack of opposition to an official visit to Taipei by Shanghai Municipal Committee United Front Work Department Director Sha Hailin (沙海林), and the government’s response that “everything will be handled in accordance with the International Olympic Committee’s regulations” after Japanese petitioned for Taiwanese athletes to compete under a “Taiwan” banner at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, are all examples of how the government is not really trying to please its core supporters.
On the contrary, amid ongoing controversy surrounding pension reform, the government has decided that the year-end bonuses for military personnel, public servants and public-school teachers will be the same as last year, when Ma was still in power.
The ruling party of a nation should not try to please different groups in turn and waver in its policies, showing a lack of principles or values. That said, the Tsai administration is one of a kind, in that it does not attempt to please its main supporters, who contributed most of the party’s votes.
The Taiwan Society has questioned Tsai’s background, saying that she was not involved in the dangwai (黨外, “outside the party”) movement that preceded the formation of the DPP and that she has not had much involvement in social movements, resulting in a lack of a sense of history and direction. It seems the Taiwan Society might have hit the nail on the head.
Tsai’s overseas supporters have also said that the fact that Tsai ran for president with the support of the DPP, but has appointed Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) ministers, is something of a democratic miracle. This is a valid point.
The minister of foreign affairs and the chairman of the Straits Exchange Foundation are both pan-blue politicians, and many finance officials also have a pan-blue background. How will these pan-blue officials meet the expectations of Taiwan-centric citizens? What kind of “status quo” will they maintain?
Moreover, mainstream opinion now recognizes Taiwan’s “status quo” as an independent state and opposes the so-called “1992 consensus,” but the government is keeping its distance from these positions. During the election campaign, the DPP sweet-talked Taiwan-centric voters, but after taking office, the government is ignoring the mainstream standpoint: Are they not afraid of alienating their stalwart supporters?
Taiwan has had direct presidential elections for 20 years, but the DPP, controlling both the government and the legislature for the first time, is neglecting its core supporters. What a great irony to Taiwan’s democracy. If this continues, the people that Tsai is now trying to please might not vote for her in four years’ time, and the DPP’s staunchest supporters might hesitate about which party to back come election day.
After eight years in office, former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) second term ended in 2008. However, the DPP’s presidential candidate that year, former premier Frank Hsieh (謝長廷), still obtained 5.44 million votes, which could serve as a conservative estimate of the number of staunch DPP supporters.
In 2012, Ma’s approval rating plunged, but he still won the presidential race against Tsai, who received 6.09 million votes. In this year’s election, Tsai won the presidential election with 6.89 million votes.
Doing the math gives us an estimate of Tsai’s support basis. The number of floating voters must not be overestimated. In addition, although Ma’s popularity had reached rock bottom, Tsai only managed to add 800,000 votes to her tally. It is clear that Tsai, and even the DPP, are reaching the upper limit to how many votes they can secure.
Hence, if Tsai tries to please everybody in turn with the exception of Taiwan-centric voters, she is committing political suicide.
During the government’s first 100 days in office, those who made a lot of noise often got what they wanted. Tsai said that making noise was not the point; the point was whether it was justifiable and whether the government was paying attention.
The DPP now controls both the executive and the legislative branches for the first time; so do they think that the Taiwan-centric voters’ demands for Taiwan’s normalization are justifiable? Are they paying attention?
Tsai subsidized former toll collectors’ lunch box and transportation expenses during their protest and kept apologizing to the Aborigines, but when it comes to the working week, the government has wavered and disregarded the operational needs of businesses, not to mention matters concerning Taiwan’s UN membership application and the national title to be used at the Tokyo Olympic Games.
What is the government thinking? Has it forgotten Chen’s lessons? He often used objective difficulties to get himself off the hook and disregarded the details as he pushed for Taiwan’s normalization, causing Taiwan to continue to play a passive role internationally, and when crises arose, he anxiously championed the DPP’s fundamental principles, which only intensified conflict both internally and externally and did not improve the situation.
The lineup of pan-blue officials in Tsai’s administration could hardly be what 6.89 million voters expected when they voted for Tsai. If those key positions had to be held by pan-blue politicians, what was the point of electing a DPP government in the first place?
Assuming control over both the executive and the legislative branches, but only talking about transitional justice without campaigning for Taiwan’s normalization, is tantamount to ignoring half the responsibilities of a government with total control. Ma’s failure gave Tsai the opportunity to gain dominant control.
As Ma betrayed his campaign pledges, the KMT’s number of votes in presidential elections have dropped from 7.6 million in 2008, to 6.89 million in 2012 and then to a devastating 3.81 million this year for New Taipei City Mayor Eric Chu (朱立倫).
This is how voters hold politicians accountable, and it will surely continue. Taiwanese are merciless, and they might support you on one day and trash you the next, so appeasement does not guarantee a return of future support. However, getting a grip on what the public needs and then satisfying those needs is the right path toward democracy.
Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) is the best example to learn from.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers