The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) surrendered eight local government leadership posts to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in November’s nine-in-one local elections as traditional supporters taught the party a lesson. Homosexuals accused the DPP of cheating to win votes after its pledge to amend same-sex marriage legislation ended up with a whimper rather than a bang. Labor rights groups have ridiculed the party, calling it the “capitalist progressive party” due to its inconsistency on the “one fixed day off, one flexible rest day” policy.
Before the elections, advocacy groups proclaimed that they would teach the DPP a lesson at the ballot box. However, elections are a zero-sum game, so teaching the DPP a lesson is tantamount to rewarding the KMT. After the elections, neither the DPP nor the KMT are likely to speak up again for gay people and labor rights groups.
Before the DPP won a legislative majority, marriage equality was never a topic of discussion. In addition to social discrimination, homosexuals did not enjoy the equal rights guaranteed by the Constitution. After the DPP came to power, all this changed. To fulfill the promise made to groups prior to the presidential and legislative elections, President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration vigorously pushed to amend the Civil Code by incorporating same-sex marriage regulations.
The problem is that the DPP underestimated the power of conservative forces. Groups opposed to same-sex marriage already started to form a coalition when the Civil Code amendment was still under discussion. Adding fuel to the flames, the KMT facilitated the success of the signature drive in support of three anti-LGBT referendums. Faced with forceful opposition to amending the law, the DPP shrank back and proposed another option — a special law regulating same-sex marriage.
Faced with opposition to amending the law, rights groups increased pressure on the government and refused to accept the option of a dedicated law, although protections offered by such a law would differ little from an amendment to the Civil Code. Amid stigmatization of homosexuals, gay rights groups turned on their own, accusing the DPP of trying to win votes through deceit by proposing legal amendments to allow same-sex marriage.
In a normal democratic society, rights groups would have fought alongside the DPP to persuade conservative, anti-gay forces and prevent anti-LGBT referendums from being passed, thereby achieving the goal of marriage equality. Incomprehensibly, rights groups took the same position as anti-gay groups by teaching the DPP a lesson at the ballot box.
As expected, the DPP suffered massive losses in the elections. Some of the party’s defeated mayoral and commissioner candidates were strong supporters of gay rights, such as Kaohsiung mayoral candidate Chen Chi-mai (陳其邁) and Taipei mayoral candidate Pasuya Yao (姚文智), while almost every winning KMT candidate, such as Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) and Changhua County Commissioner Wang Hui-mei (王惠美), supported the anti-LGBT referendums.
Labor rights groups also gave the DPP a hard time at the ballot box, the key factor for them being the “one fixed day off and one flexible rest day” policy. The scales have long been tipped toward employers at the cost of employees. Compared with civil servants and public-school teachers, who already have two days off every week, workers continue to face a legally binding 84 working hours every two weeks, with overtime pay calculated by the hour. Poor working conditions is one of the negative effects of the KMT’s long hold on power.
The Tsai administration, which is a bit more worker-friendly, immediately pushed for the “one fixed day off and one flexible rest day” policy after assuming office, fulfilling Tsai’s promise to labor rights groups of a five-day workweek. “One fixed day off” means that employers are required to give employees one fixed day off every week, while “one flexible rest day” means that employees can be asked to work overtime on one of the weekly rest days.
When the policy was implemented, seven national holidays that had been kept for the benefit of workers were also scrapped. In practice, “one fixed day off and one flexible rest day” is equivalent to two days off per week, but the system retains flexibility for employers to make adjustments to work hours so that those reluctant to work overtime could take two days off per week while those who are willing to work would be able to earn more.
The policy marks the first substantial improvement in working conditions in 30 years. However, rights groups did not buy into the policy, insisting on two days off per week and retaining the national holidays.
Faced with harsher demands, businesses did not make any deliberate attempt to block the DPP’s legislative amendment. Instead, they saved their attacks until after the bill was passed, saying that it was a losing proposition for employers, workers and consumers. At that time, rights groups, who were the main beneficiaries of the policy, remained silent as the policy endured attacks, distortions and mudslinging.
The DPP was unable to resist the one-sided onslaught and loosened regulations on employers in another amendment. It was only at this point that rights groups stood up. However, instead of siding with the DPP against employers, they turned on their own, saying that the DPP had become a “party for employers” and pledged to teach the DPP a lesson at the ballot box.
As expected, the DPP stumbled in the elections. Chen, who had spared no effort in pushing the policy as a legislator, lost in Kaohsiung, while Wang, who as a legislator once proposed a job responsibility system, was elected commissioner in Changhua County.
Ironically, Kaohsiung and Changhua are home to a large workforce, but with the DPP’s losses, no one there will speak up for workers or gay people again. Rights groups wanted perfect reform and left no room for compromise, and because the DPP was unable to provide perfection, they decided to teach it a lesson by voting for the KMT.
This inability to tell friend from foe makes it more difficult for the DPP to speak up for them, because if the party commits the slightest unintentional mistake, they will become the enemy. The KMT, the real enemy, only has to stand by and avail itself of every opportunity to win voters by deceit, without even having to take their side.
This conclusion does not only apply to gay rights advocates and labor rights groups: It is equally applicable to other traditional DPP supporters, such as environmental and pro-independence groups, supporters of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), and so on.
Tario Ong is a university professor in the US.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
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