The local government elections are over. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) won 14 constituencies to the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) six. DPP Chairman Su Tseng-tsang (
The seeds of this defeat were planted long ago, when the party, still in opposition, promised reform, localization and a clean government -- promises it did not deliver after gaining power in 2000. Now that the promises are fading, so is public support for the party.
Before the elections, many DPP supporters said the party had deviated from its founding ideals after it gained power. They add that slogans calling for "reform" and "localization" are only dusted off during elections, while its "active deregulation" policy has seriously damaged Taiwan's economy and prompted a rise in pro-China sentiment. These supporters have now taught the DPP a lesson by not campaigning for candidates, and even abstaining from voting. The party's political future is clearly at risk.
It is true that the DPP's reform effort has suffered from its minority position in the legislature. However, issues that do not need to go through the legislature -- such as the 18 percent preferential interest rate -- were only rushed onto the agenda just prior to the elections, which raises questions about resolve. And for all the talk of reform, the government has focused on deregulating investment in China, pushing a position similar to that held by the KMT and the People First Party (PFP).
The policy has strengthened the opposition's position among undecided voters by making the KMT's and the PFP's idea that Taiwan's hopes lie in China's booming economy appear both natural and unavoidable.
Under the DPP, localization is politically incorrect while active deregulation is politically correct. Top leaders have questioned calls to change Taiwan's national title and write a new constitution, while confirming the active deregulation policy.
The message is that the DPP government is implementing the political and economic policies of the KMT and PFP.
Active deregulation and other policies have meant continued high unemployment and other social problems. Officials concentrate on serving Taiwanese businesspeople in China, reducing local residents to second-rate citizens. What should the public think when the DPP, which used to claim to protect the disadvantaged, now helps create unemployment? It has also opened itself up for criticism from the PFP for both insufficient deregulation and creating poverty.
In recent elections, top DPP leaders have tried to mobilize traditional supporters with calls to change the nation's title and write a new constitution, recitations of "one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait" and giving priority to investing in Taiwan. As soon as the elections are over and the party has its votes, however, promises regarding localization and reform are forgotten and active deregulation rules the day. This is tantamount to asking voters who want the DPP to pursue localization to get on the party's China train. Apart from die-hard DPP supporters, who else do they think they are fooling?
The same thing happened during last year's legislative elections. Afterwards, party leaders changed their tune. They told supporters that "It simply can't be done." The premier has said that the push for a new national title and constitution will be put on the back burner, and the focus will be on reconciliation and "one China under the Constitution."
Do they think they will be able to go on cheating voters by ignoring their own promises and treating voters as if they were disposable? Are they completely unaware that voters no longer want to be held hostage by the DPP?
Before the elections, the government announced a second Economic Development Advisory Conference (EDAC). There are signs, however, that the second EDAC will simply be a show to confirm the active deregulation policy. If this is true, the DPP's future looks even darker.
We implore the government to stop its slide toward China, lest its performance in future elections become even worse.
In the past, the government's focus on active deregulation and effective management resulted in unmanaged deregulation. It claimed to prioritize investment in Taiwan, but did not ask how to resuscitate local industry. And although top leaders said they would prefer to halt deregulation in the absence of effective management, management remains ineffective and deregulation continues to expand.
These matters touch on the government's credibility and involve Taiwan's economic future, which is looking bleaker and bleaker.
However, the straw that broke the camel's back was the Kaohsiung MRT scandal, which dealt a heavy blow to the party's clean image. The combination of the DPP's inability to stay true to localization and reform, as well as corruption among some officials, alienated voters.
The loss shows that Taiwan's voters will not back a government that doesn't support localization. If the DPP cannot implement reform and localization, or offer a clean government, the praise it earned in the past will turn into scorn.
The public has cast a vote of no-confidence in the DPP government. We now must wait to see whether the party is capable of soul-searching and regaining the trust of mainstream voters who hope for a progressive DPP that can help develop Taiwan.
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