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
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US