The presidential and legislative elections take place on Saturday. Every election is important and the main characteristic of these elections is generational change.
Five years ago, Justin Trudeau, then 43, became prime minister of Canada; in 2017, Emmanuel Macron, then 40, was elected president of France; the same year, Jacinda Ardern, then 37, became prime minister of New Zealand; and last year, Sanna Marin, 34, became prime minister of Finland.
We live in a time of generational change, and the baton is being passed to men and women of the younger generation as they take over to lead people into a new era.
The Taiwanese elections are a clear manifestation of this.
First, from Keelung to Pingtung, there is a difference of almost 25 years in the average age of the candidates of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
This equates to a whole generation and, fittingly, these elections are indeed about generational differences.
The average KMT candidate is 62 years old and the party claims that the experience of its candidates is what makes it the only viable choice.
However, what kind of experience do they have?
By comparison, some of the distinguishing features of the DPP’s candidates are that they have no complicated vested business interests in their baggage, and they have gone to the best schools at home and abroad, graduating from Yale, Harvard and National Taiwan University.
If the DPP’s candidates, whose average age is 38, are elected, their uncomplicated background, capability and energy would allow them to build a new vision for the next 20 years.
Surely all the education and training they received were undertaken with the intent that they should be the nation’s leaders.
Given the wisdom of voters, why should they not make the best of this opportunity for these candidates and themselves?
Another cross-generational characteristic that is closely related to Taiwan is the generational change in China: The 1990s was the decade when China went from poverty to development, and the 2020s are set to be the decade when it slips from development into decline.
Economically, the US’ trade and technology sanctions and the outflow of foreign businesses are likely to result in economic decline in China, just as Japan slipped into decline in the 1990s.
Socially, the turmoil in Hong Kong, China’s inability to respond to Hong Kongers’ demands for direct elections and the reliance on police violence against young protesters would also lead to domestic economic decline and increased unemployment.
The inability to respond to social demands would lead to suppression of the public by the paramilitary Chinese People’s Armed Police Force, and Hong Kong would become the fuse that sets Chinese cities on the path from stability to upheaval.
Tragically, in the face of these generational changes, the older generation in the People First Party (PFP) and the KMT have made it clear that they have no vision for the future
They have slid from opposition to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) through fear to friendliness and then sycophancy, making the CPP’s views their own.
As people around the world condemn the CCP and Hong Kong police for their violence and cruelty against young protesters, candidates on the KMT’s legislator-at-large list have expressed their support for Hong Kong’s police force.
While democratic governments respond to the global situation by passing anti-infiltration legislation, the KMT and the PFP are throwing their lot with the White Wolf’s [Chang An-le (張安樂)] China Unitification Promotion Party, using various insinuations to block national security legislation.
Does the KMT not have even one person left with an international outlook?
It is not surprising that such a political party would nominate s its presidential candidate someone who abandoned his position as mayor of Kaohsiung and kneels more than he walks.
It is, in fact, only fitting.
The elections represent a generational change in Taiwan. The nation’s outstanding young people and all Taiwanese have an opportunity to lay the foundations for the nation’s next 20 years.
Mike Chang is an accountant.
Translated by Perry Svensson
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS