Taiwanese politics change quickly and yesterday’s political stars become today’s political losers.
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration knows this well, and so does the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
Who would have imagined that after only 50 days in power, Ma’s public approval would drop from 58 percent at the time of the presidential election to about 30 percent now?
The inability of Premier Liu Chao-shiuan’s (劉兆玄) Cabinet to tackle rising consumer and oil prices and the freefalling stock market are only part of the reason for the public’s reaction. The key reason for the government’s loss of public support is Ma’s failure to deliver on his campaign promises.
Ma’s rise to perhaps the most popular politician in Taiwan was mainly a result of meeting the public’s taste in backing away from ideological rhetoric and framing himself as a gentle problem-solver.
But in reality, Ma is a consummate politician. He anticipates what people want to hear and tells the public whatever keeps them satisfied. The biggest question now is whether Ma is a man of action and efficiency.
Deja vu? The fact that the DPP was not defeated by Ma and his Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) but by itself deserves more attention. Once voters questioned its integrity and held its misconduct up against principles of honesty and morality, it was hard for the DPP to regain support.
Public distrust of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and the DPP led voters to place their hopes in Ma and the KMT because they believed the new government would bring immediate results. Its failure to meet expectations has naturally created a strong public backlash.
With the government’s poor performance, how can the DPP rebuild its image and regain public trust?
The DPP government’s biggest problem was it promised more than it could achieve. Sometimes the commitments were made dishonestly, and even worse was the misconduct associated with some DPP officials.
We all make mistakes, but the difference is that politicians’ mistakes make the front page. So politicians — good ones at least — develop an ability to recover from a foul-up.
Under the chairmanship of Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), the DPP has displayed a different and more positive image. Not only has Tsai introduced a rational strategy for monitoring the KMT, she has also been carefully developing new skills of coordination and leadership within the party’s grassroot support.
A recent poll released by TVBS showed Tsai to be the most popular political figure in Taiwan, with a near 50 percent approval rating — compared with less than 30 percent for Ma and Liu.
What Tsai and the DPP need most is to incorporate elements of strength, self-discipline, decisiveness and effective execution to fulfill the role of a loyal opposition.
The power reshuffle at last weekend’s party congress showed some political wrestling between different factions and senior leaders, but the DPP should avoid pointing fingers. A re-examination must be conducted from the bottom up. A closer relationship between party headquarters, the legislative caucus and local party branches must be established. Most importantly, the DPP must reinforce its connection with the rank and file and recruit more independent and attractive talent.
By taking the theme of strength and unity and applying it to anti-corruption, economic rejuvenation, law enforcement, environmental protection and national security, the DPP can win back public support.
Liu Shih-chung is a Taipei-based political commentator.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the
RSS