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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS