National Civil Servant Association president Harry Lee (李來希) has said he will establish a new political party that will run in next year’s local elections and nominate candidates for the legislative elections in 2020. He also said that the party would nominate a joint presidential candidate with other opposition parties.
Lee said that a party restricted to military personnel, civil servants and public-school teachers would have no future, and the new party would be for the general public and include blue-collar workers, farmers, and members of disadvantaged groups and civil organizations — such as social welfare groups and groups opposed to same-sex marriage — as well as academics, experts and think-tank representatives.
Establishing such a party and participating in elections is tantamount to holding a referendum on pension reform, and that is a good thing.
At a time when several things are at a turning point, founding a new party could have far-reaching effects, and it will be interesting to see what will happen.
Establishing a party to see how it will be received by the public is a matter of normal democratic competition.
Although most of the comments and activities of people who are not happy with pension reform stay within legal boundaries, it is impossible to know how much public support they have.
Most opinion polls show that reform supporters have a comfortable lead, feel pension reform is a matter of fairness and justice, and think it will help alleviate fiscal difficulties. Furthermore, retired public servants and public-school teachers are still well-off in the final pension reform bill.
However, people negatively affected by the reform will continue to feel deprived, which makes it difficult to have an objective view of the ratio of supporters to opponents.
It is better that the “victims” of pension reform establish a party and explain their ideas to the public in a bid to gain more support.
Since they want to join the democratic playing field, they must evaluate whether their guerrilla-style street protests help garner support.
In particular, if they establish a party for the general public that covers more professions and social roles, they will have the opportunity to engage in internal dialogue and clarify the pros and cons of pension reform.
This is the only way to set the party’s main direction and program to engage in more comprehensive dialogue with voters, and hear their opinions.
When the New Party and People First Party were established in 1993 and 2000 respectively, the New Party had a clear stance and managed to shake up public opinion. The parties’ founders had split from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and both parties had a major effect on public opinion.
At the time, the differences between the two were clear and they attracted supporters outside the KMT. They won seats at the legislature and increased their political power.
Following changes in the democratic situation, the two parties — which have relatively narrow platforms — proved unable to overcome the KMT, which has broader and more inclusive policies.
The Workers’ Party, which split from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in 1987, has been unable to win any legislative seats.
One of the advantages of democracy is that while a narrow platform might be more explosive, continued public support is more important.
Sharp political divisions and interests will result in stability and progress when they are allowed to clash in the democratic arena.
KMT chairman-elect Wu Den-yih’s (吳敦義) policy platform continues to define cross-strait relations in terms of the so-called “1992 consensus” and “one China, different interpretations,” while strongly opposing Taiwanese independence.
Last week, China’s Xinhua news agency issued new terminology guidelines, saying that it is permissible to mention the “1992 consensus,” but not “one China, different interpretations,” thus clarifying what has always been Beijing’s position.
Last year’s elections proved that “one China, different interpretations” and opposition to Taiwanese independence have failed as political guidelines.
Taiwan is moving toward normalizing its national status, but the KMT continues to blindly follow Beijing’s lead and to ignore the opinion of the majority of Taiwanese, in particular the younger generation which has seen Taiwan only as an independent nation.
How can the KMT think about returning to government when it continues to persist in views that are only supported by a minority? Is it hoping to have outside help and preparing to give up its insistence on “one China, different interpretations”?
The KMT is being targeted for its ill-gotten assets and has been affected by the pursuit of transitional justice, while the pension reform issue is eating into the party’s die-hard supporters, and the remaining strength of the old party-state continues to weaken.
Still, the KMT does not try to move closer to, and redefine itself in line with, public opinion. Its only concern is to work with China, which is trying to undermine Taiwan’s economy and flies military aircraft around the nation.
The KMT experienced its biggest-ever defeat in last year’s elections. It has failed to transform and accept that power rests with the public, lost the support of the party-state and faces the demands of transitional justice. How will it be able to rise again?
If the KMT is shrinking and becoming a small party, that would create more space for new parties, while smaller parties would find more space to grow and expand. Will this lead to yet another reshuffling of the political stage, and would that be a blessing or curse for the DPP?
Furthermore, what will the new face of Taiwanese democracy look like, and how will it affect national security?
Translated by Perry Svensson
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under