Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Secretary-General King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) attributed his party’s poor performance in Saturday’s by-elections — it only won one of the four legislative seats up for grabs — to “not working hard enough.”
This assessment has a long list of precedents in President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, where defeats and setbacks are blamed on poor communication or lack of effort. Never, from its handling of Typhoon Morakot to the US beef debacle, did the KMT admit that political decisions that did not appeal to the public — or policies that are downright wrong — were the principal factor in the administration’s dwindling popular support.
In many ways, this attitude is reminiscent of the People’s Action Party in Singapore and the Hong Kong government in the 1970s, wherein the government acts as a paternalistic figure for the masses: It knows what is best for the people and any bump in the road to policy implementation is the result of poor communication — or, to be more precise, persuasiveness.
The result is that such unrepresentative governments will often stick to self-defeating policies, held hostage by the belief that by dint of repetition and persuasion, the public will come around and see the wisdom behind the government’s position.
This may have worked in systems where there is little institutionalized political opposition to speak of, but in a democratic country like Taiwan, persuasion alone isn’t enough, and that’s because voters have options. What voters need isn’t convincing, via government briefings in hall meetings, but concrete results. If the government fails to deliver, voters will simply give their vote to another political party (or choose not to vote, which is another means to express discontent).
This is the beauty of retributive democracy: It places the focus on quantifiable results rather than political rhetoric.
That KMT officials like King would continue to blame defeats on poor communication shows us that the party has not learned from its mistakes and could be a harbinger of future setbacks at the polls. It highlights the party’s utter failure to adapt to the times and to take into account nearly 15 years of formative democracy. There is no place for antiquated, paternalistic “we know best” government in Taiwan.
Should it fail to bring its mindset in line with the modernity that most Taiwanese have reached, the KMT will continue to advocate flawed policies that stand no chance of gaining traction with the public, no matter how hard it tries to portray them as the best ones.
This is not to say, however, that the KMT’s intellectual stasis means that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) can sit on its laurels and expect easy fights in the future. In fact, as the main opposition party, the lack of rigor in government policymaking compels it to come up with sound alternative policies that will sell themselves. So far, the DPP has been less than formidable in that department, and its recent string of wins is attributable more to KMT ineptitude than DPP savvy.
Those victories, however welcome they were for the DPP, were but small fights in a much larger battle, and if it is to win the big fights — the year-end elections in Sinbei and Taipei cities, as well as the presidential election in 2012 — it will have to awaken from its own stupor and propose real, workable policy alternatives on which to build a strong nation.
The small Baltic nation of Lithuania last week announced that it would accept a Taiwanese representative office in its capital, Vilnius, and that it would establish its own trade office in Taiwan by the end of the year. This was more than a welcome announcement to Taiwan and goes far beyond the normal establishment of trade relations. Lithuanian Minister of Foreign Affairs Gabrielius Landsbergis summed it up succinctly, boldly saying: “Freedom-loving people should look out for each other.” With these words, Landsbergis was purposefully going beyond normal diplomacy; he was also presenting a moral challenge and reminder to other democratic nations. A look
On a peaceful day in the open Pacific Ocean to the east of Taiwan, a US carrier and five accompanying warships were slowly sailing to guard the western Pacific. Another carrier battle group had just returned to its home port in San Diego. Suddenly, alarms went off as many intercontinental ballistic missiles were launched from the interior of China, flying toward Taiwan. Numerous Chinese warships, carriers, fighter jets, bombers and submarines were fast converging on the US ships. Not too long after, missiles, bombs and torpedoes were fired at the US carrier. The surprise to Americans was the number of
The Tokyo Olympics will perhaps be remembered as one of the oddest Games in the event’s long and checkered history. Held amid a global pandemic, spectators are banned from most venues, leaving athletes to play out their feats of sporting brilliance in eerie silence. Meanwhile, furious Tokyo residents wave placards outside some venues, calling for the Games’ cancelation. Adding to the incongruity of it all, the entire Russian team is absent, banned due to a doping scandal. That the Tokyo Olympics went ahead at all has been extremely contentious in Japan. Critics fear a mass outbreak of the highly contagious Delta
I was a bit startled last week when Legislative Yuan Speaker You Si-kun (游錫堃) suggested that the United States could extend official recognition to an independent Taiwan if China were to launch an invasion. While I think Speaker You is correct, I am not sure it is a helpful point of view. Naturally, there are contingency plans in Washington on diplomatic actions that could deter Chinese military action, but they contemplate the continuity of a democratic Taiwanese government that could survive offshore in exile if part or all of Taiwan is occupied by communist Chinese forces. China’s threat that “Taiwan