Chen Shui-bian's
KMT rule was based on a strict control of all interest groups in society. Oppositional voices were thus found primarily in civil society, which has been growing slowly from the early Tangwai
Progressive ideas emerged in Taiwan's civil society in opposition to the dictatorial rule of the KMT. There was little distinction between the opposition party and civil society.
In this post-KMT period, however, the DPP now occupies the commanding heights of the state and is poised to to draw oppositional resources and leaders out of Taiwan's budding civil society. The DPP now is the "ruling bloc," while the elite of the past must face the loss of their special privileges.
As the ruling party the DPP now will be compelled to make compromises and thus becomes susceptible to corruption. Therefore, there is a threat that a vacuum could suddenly emerge within civil society in Taiwan.
The deconstruction and recomposition of political forces in Taiwan has left the KMT and quasi-KMT factions (party defectors including those aligned with James Soong [宋楚瑜] in the position of being the "opposition." These factions were sustained in the past by their special privileges, forming the nexus of "black gold" politics. We can thus rule them out from becoming a progressive force anytime in the near future.
The sudden loss of power by the KMT has opened up a new political arena. There are now three main actors: the state, political forces and civil society. If new civic forces do not develop quickly, then Taiwan -- already seriously lacking critical voices -- may soon be enveloped by a new conservatism.
Simply put, how do progressive social forces form? Which groups will take up the mantle of criticism and struggle with conservative forces?
The KMT was an emigre regime, with the mainlander elite monopolizing political power, when it first arrived in Taiwan. As a result, the discourse of ethnicity was progressive during Taiwan's democratization, in that it represented the society's struggle for autonomy in the midst of political colonization.
However, if political struggle continues between Taiwanese, who are consolidating their power, and the mainlanders, who are losing their privileges, then the struggle may degrade into ethnic strife.
Regular threats from Beijing during elections could also slow down internal reforms in Taiwan. It is important for civil society to find a way to prevent the "China threat" from affecting Taiwan's process of democratization.
Another crucial issue is how to break free of the Chinese/Taiwanese nationalism split that provides the impetus for the lingering independence/reunification divisions. When dealing with cross-strait issues, we must distinguish between the nationalist rhetoric of a Republic of Taiwan and the demands for political and social autonomy in Taiwan.
Pressing for immediate construction of a republic could easily fall into the trap of ethnic conflict. A movement promoting Taiwan's autonomy, however, would coalesce society in Taiwan around one identity and help resist foreign pressure. If this occurs, then progressive voices within Taiwan will be more able to link up with the democratic forces gradually emerging within China.
But where do we find critical voices within Taiwan? With the formation of a new cabinet in sight, public opinion has turned to a discussion of the proper role of cultural and academic personalities in government. All civic groups should be aware of the crucial fact: the DPP is now the ruling party. Civic groups should maintain a distance from the DPP so that they can continue to act as a counterweight and supervise the party.
What will happen to the political forces presently swarming around Soong? We sincerely hope that the People First Party
Power begets corruption and oppression. If the KMT and Soong's party are unable toprovide a progressive opposition, then who will prevent the government from slipping into corruption? Who will put forth a progressive and critical voice?
Lii Ding-tzann is professor of sociology, National Tsing Hua University and Wu Jieh-min is assistant professor of sociology, National Tsing Hua University.
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Victory in conflict requires mastery of two “balances”: First, the balance of power, and second, the balance of error, or making sure that you do not make the most mistakes, thus helping your enemy’s victory. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has made a decisive and potentially fatal error by making an enemy of the Jewish Nation, centered today in the State of Israel but historically one of the great civilizations extending back at least 3,000 years. Mind you, no Israeli leader has ever publicly declared that “China is our enemy,” but on October 28, 2025, self-described Chinese People’s Armed Police (PAP) propaganda
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS