In the past, when the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was mentioned, the image that appeared in people’s heads was that of a party that was honest and local, a party that had the support of many prominent intellectuals who were against the concentration of power in the hands of one party.
From a brand management point of view, these were some enviable brand assets.
After eight years as the ruling party, impressions of corruption, incompetence and extremism are weighing hard on the DPP brand.
These are very lethal brand liabilities. It does not matter if the DPP is really like the manner in which the media has portrayed or not.
The fact is the public has a very bad impression of the party, or else it wouldn’t have lost so badly in the legislative and presidential elections. Under the long-term subtle influence of the media, the DPP’s brand liabilities have for some time now outweighed its brand assets.
The DPP is in need of thorough brand repositioning.
Repositioning does not mean the party has to abandon all its original core values, rather it means removing existing negative impressions that people have in their minds.
Apart from engaging in open and honest self-evaluation, even more importantly, the party must exploit and even create opportunities to improve its image.
The choosing of a new chairperson for the party is an excellent opportunity for the DPP to reposition its image.
Especially because this new chairperson is being picked on the heels of the serious setbacks in the legislative and presidential elections, the person who is chosen will be a representation of how willing the party is to reform itself.
Some of the things that the DPP members should keep in mind when selecting their new chairperson are which of the candidates can improve society’s impression of the DPP and minimize the DPP’s brand liabilities, and who can maximize support from within the party.
A political party is like a product. If you want to sell a product to consumers, you must tailor the product by putting yourself in the consumer’s position.
To really sell something, you have to abandon the arrogant attitude that consumers should buy your product simply because you think it’s good.
The DPP runs the risk of choosing a chairperson based only on whether the candidates can maximize support within the party. This often gets mixed up with too many private interests. In this situation, there’s a danger of compromising too much and straying from the ideals in the process.
The DPP has already been nearly suffocated by its brand liabilities.
If all the talk about reform turns out to be no more than empty words, and no real action is taken, it will be impossible for the public to adopt a fresh and new image of the party, let alone be inspired.
Candidates Koo Kwang-ming (辜寬敏), Chai Trong-rong (蔡同榮) and Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) are all very talented individuals. Whoever wins will not necessarily be better or worse than the other candidates. Rather, the race will be decided by considering the expectations of society and who can minimize the DPP’s brand liabilities.
The DPP is standing at a historical crossroads: It will either slowly start to steer toward success, or it can continue its steep descent.
The next chairperson will more than ever symbolize the DPP’s desire to reform.
Liu Shun-ming has an MSc degree in Public Policy and Management from Carnegie Mellon University.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS