With survey after survey showing abysmal numbers, it is by now pretty clear that the general sentiment regarding the performance of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his Cabinet is overwhelmingly negative. While the opposition sees such dissatisfaction as a tremendous opportunity to regain power, it would be a grave mistake to assume that the current situation will automatically translate into votes for them.
Above all, the public feels it has been let down by Ma and his less-than-stellar group of Cabinet officials, and the willingness of Taiwanese to continue buying Ma’s promises about a brighter future is wearing thin. One can only wait so long for Godot.
As Ma’s popularity rating approaches the single-digit zone, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is naturally feeling elated, seeing this as a sign of possible major gains in the seven-in-one elections in 2014 and the more distant presidential election in 2016.
However, while this indeed creates an opportunity for the DPP, it also adds new responsibilities, including the need for the pan-green camp to give Taiwanese hope about the future of their nation. Simply bashing the president when he is at his most vulnerable, or calling for a Cabinet reshuffle, is not enough. In fact, doing so would probably ensure that, low numbers notwithstanding, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) will perform better than expected in 2014 and prevail again in 2016.
Giving hope entails presenting policy alternatives that are clearly communicated to the public and relevant to people’s welfare. Making headway will involve a thorough, and by no means easy, rejuvenation of the party through new leadership that looks to the future rather than the past. For this to come about, the party will need to be led not by extraordinary individuals who did extraordinary things 30 years ago, but by young people, whose future and country are shaped by the decisions made today.
The DPP will have to do much more to cultivate young talent, and youth programs that involve top-down lecturing by party officials — which tends to permanently turn young people off politics — is not how to go about it. It is of little surprise that the ongoing student mobilization against media monopolization — the largest and most comprehensive youth movement in three decades — has remained distant from political parties, including the DPP, which shares their concerns about freedom of speech.
No doubt, the KMT is equally inept at attracting young talent, and its potential candidates for 2016 are rather underwhelming. This would be comforting if all things were equal, but that is the problem — all things are not equal. The DPP does not have the advantage of money and it never will. The personal fortune of Ma’s diplomat-at-large, former vice president Lien Chan (連戰), alone is several times that of the entire pan-green camp, while the disparity in resources between the KMT and the DPP simply boggles the mind. What the DPP therefore needs is the advantage of ideas.
If the DPP is to become a truly relevant party for current and future young generations of Taiwanese, it will have to find ways to appeal to them and give youth the respect they deserve. Only by joining the political experience that comes with age with the idealism and creativity of young minds will the twain come together to present the kind of front that can truly defeat the KMT and meet the challenges presented by China.
The future leaders are among us now, but a longstanding tradition of paternalism is preventing them from finding their voice. One person seems to understand the need to reach out to young people, to inspire them and to equip them with the wisdom that comes with experience. In recent weeks, former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) has toured school campuses to talk and listen to students, and above all to give them hope. For the sake of the DPP’s — and Taiwan’s — future, this is well worth emulating.
Last week, Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda Gates, said in a statement that they have decided to end their marriage. The news immediately caused a global sensation. When my daughter heard that I was going to write a newspaper op-ed to comment on the matter, she made sure to remind me not to focus on the divorce agreement or the handling of the world’s richest couple’s wealth. Instead of talking about how much money Melinda Gates would get from the divorce, my daughter wanted me to focus on the many sacrifices she has made, and on her many
Taiwan has finally become an ongoing public issue in Canada, due in part to its success in keeping out COVID-19, and the Chinese Communist Party’s successful efforts to offend just about everyone in Canada. Following the lead of right-wing US politicians, Canadian conservative pundits and Canadian Shadow Minister of Foreign Affairs Michael Chong (莊文浩) of the Conservative Party, politicians are urging Canada to “recognize Taiwan.” There is a small problem here for Canada, which has a different history of relations with Taiwan than the US. For Canada to “recognize” Taiwan as things stand would be to re-recognize the Republic of China
Given China’s regional might, it is little surprise that the nation casts a long shadow across Asia — including in its media coverage. However, we are now seeing a disturbing trend of Western media casting a favorable light on China, right as it stands accused of suppressing democracy in Hong Kong, interning Uighurs and obscuring investigations into the origins of COVID-19. At the same time, important coverage of Asian democracies, such as Taiwan’s 20-place leap in the Democracy Index last year — in the midst of a pandemic that brought major constrictions of democratic rights in many places — gets
As Taiwan’s August referendum on completing its Fourth Nuclear Power Plant approaches, one question that has not yet been fully considered is to what extent this and Taiwan’s other three plants are military liabilities — radioactive targets that China aims to attack. At best, a threatened strike or an intentional near-miss against one plant would likely force the government to shut the other nuclear plants down as a precaution. At worst, a strike could produce Chernobyl-like contamination, forcing the evacuation of millions. Some partial, temporary defenses are possible and should be pursued, but ultimately, the smart money is on substituting