Reactions from several leading Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) members in response to former premier William Lai’s (賴清德) decision to challenge President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) re-election bid have been disappointing and raise questions over their dedication to the values that the party’s name suggests.
Shortly after Lai on March 18 registered for the DPP’s presidential primary, senior members — including Presidential Office Secretary-General Chen Chu (陳菊), DPP Secretary-General Luo Wen-jia (羅文嘉) and Taoyuan Mayor Cheng Wen-tsan (鄭文燦) — stressed the importance of unity, with Chen declaring her support for Tsai, while DPP Legislator Chen Ming-wen (陳明文) led 34 party lawmakers in signing a letter endorsing the president.
Then DPP Chairman Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) expressed concern that should Lai win the primary, it might cause a constitutional crisis for the nation, as Tsai would be a lame duck for the remainder of her term.
Furthermore, DPP city and county councilors — fearing that a fierce primary could split the party — are clamoring for Tsai and Lai to run on the same ticket.
These anti-democratic sentiments suggest that the party’s supposed dedication to fostering the values of democracy is taken at face value by most DPP members, who are subconsciously still rooted in a feudal mindset.
Those who champion party unity at the sight of a challenger confronting a sitting leader have more to do with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which, whenever it is faced with change, displays reluctance to reform with calls for “party unity.”
Former DPP chairman Yu Shyi-kun (游錫堃) hit the nail on the head with his piercing remarks that the word “unity” has “become the shackle with which people in power and those with vested interests fetter others.”
As for the risk of a “constitutional crisis,” even if Tsai loses the primary, her term is guaranteed by law through May 19 next year and the nation would be governed as usual as set out in Article 53 of the Constitution, which stipulates: “The Executive Yuan shall be the highest administrative organ of the state.”
Those who were swift to call for a Tsai-Lai pairing expose their misalignment in a political party that brands itself as “democratic.” Why would they favor political intervention over the impartial rules and fair play that are central to democratic politics?
Despite Cho’s reiteration that the party headquarters is neutral, “not harboring preference for a sitting president,” it is bizarre that he has set up a team tasked with “finding common ground between Tsai and Lai.”
As Cho noted, mediation is a lawful mechanism, but the move nonetheless defies the principles of democratic conduct. If Lai is to be “mediated” out of the primary, on what grounds would Tsai be able to convince the DPP’s grassroots supporters that she could win next year?
American political scientist Elmer Eric Schattschneider highlighted the role of political parties in developing democracy, saying: “the political parties created democracy ... and modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of the parties.”
A truly democratic party would value constructive competition, as it increases public engagement with democracy; and a democracy is stronger when people are well-informed and can make meaningful choices.
Only with a level playing field would all sides consent to the result, regardless of whether they win or lose.
Hopefully, DPP headquarters has the wisdom to run its presidential primary on fair terms, befitting the party’s name. Otherwise, it might as well change its name to the “democratic regressive party.”
In the past month, two important developments are poised to equip Taiwan with expanded capabilities to play foreign policy offense in an age where Taiwan’s diplomatic space is seriously constricted by a hegemonic Beijing. Taiwan Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) led a delegation of Taiwan and US companies to the Philippines to promote trilateral economic cooperation between the three countries. Additionally, in the past two weeks, Taiwan has placed chip export controls on South Africa in an escalating standoff over the placing of its diplomatic mission in Pretoria, causing the South Africans to pause and ask for consultations to resolve
An altercation involving a 73-year-old woman and a younger person broke out on a Taipei MRT train last week, with videos of the incident going viral online, sparking wide discussions about the controversial priority seats and social norms. In the video, the elderly woman, surnamed Tseng (曾), approached a passenger in a priority seat and demanded that she get up, and after she refused, she swung her bag, hitting her on the knees and calves several times. In return, the commuter asked a nearby passenger to hold her bag, stood up and kicked Tseng, causing her to fall backward and
In December 1937, Japanese troops captured Nanjing and unleashed one of the darkest chapters of the 20th century. Over six weeks, hundreds of thousands were slaughtered and women were raped on a scale that still defies comprehension. Across Asia, the Japanese occupation left deep scars. Singapore, Malaya, the Philippines and much of China endured terror, forced labor and massacres. My own grandfather was tortured by the Japanese in Singapore. His wife, traumatized beyond recovery, lived the rest of her life in silence and breakdown. These stories are real, not abstract history. Here is the irony: Mao Zedong (毛澤東) himself once told visiting
When I reminded my 83-year-old mother on Wednesday that it was the 76th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, she replied: “Yes, it was the day when my family was broken.” That answer captures the paradox of modern China. To most Chinese in mainland China, Oct. 1 is a day of pride — a celebration of national strength, prosperity and global stature. However, on a deeper level, it is also a reminder to many of the families shattered, the freedoms extinguished and the lives sacrificed on the road here. Seventy-six years ago, Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong (毛澤東)
RSS