The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) have dominated Taiwan for at least 30 years. Since both parties have won elections and thus know the taste of power, and since their leaders lack strong beliefs and values, the parties have lost their spirit and the confrontations between them have become the biggest source of chaos in Taiwan.
The Sunflower movement and the nine-in-one elections last year have showed that Taiwanese have lost all hope in the two parties.
As the call for the formation of a third force is reaching a climax, it seems that a lot of young talented activists are on the rise. The eye-catching names of their groups are often seen in the news, and people have high expectations of them. Among these groups, the Taiwan Citizen Union has been the most active, but the group recently announced that it was splitting.
Ever since the Sunflower movement emerged last year, political forces opposed to the pan-blue and pan-green camps have focused on finding and recruiting staff and supporters, but they have failed to propose a more complete set of ideals. Humans are fragile and unreliable, and they must be tested. Ideals are the most solid foundation when forming a party, and it is ideals that represent a party’s spirit. Without spirit, a party is nothing but a paper tiger — just like the KMT and DPP.
An ideal is not about age, nationality or skin color, nor is it found or invented quickly. Modern people know that civilization is accumulated and that values have been repeatedly proven by their forebears. Unfortunately, Taiwan’s politicians are so arrogant that they often are dismissive of humanity’s shared assets and instead try to win public support relying on their charisma.
Why has the Kaohsiung Incident, also known as the Formosa Incident, been the only social movement that has truly affected Taiwan’s political direction and changed its fate since World War II and the 228 Incident? Because the members of the “Formosa political group” dared to confront the system despite the threat of a death sentence stipulated in Article 2-1 of the now-rescinded Act for the Punishment of Rebellion (懲治叛亂條例).
We took to the streets to advocate our ideals of lifting the ban on new parties and newspapers, abolishing martial law, promoting elections to the National Assembly as well as various political and economic reforms. Our ideals preceded us, as we let our thoughts lead the way.
In terms of Taiwan’s current view of history, two major views that both compete with and complete each other coexist. The activists during the era of the Formosa Incident dared to uphold a Taiwan-centered view of history against the KMT’s Chinese colonial rule as we confronted the party’s China-centered view of history; a view that leaned toward unification.
This was a reflection of the humanistic quality of the movement. Another key quality was the beliefs and values that were unveiled. At the time, the emblem for the Formosa political group was a fist covered by two olive branches featuring the two words “human rights.” The sign stated that the aim of the political group was to pursue political, economic and social human rights through peaceful means. These three human rights domains represented a modern interpretation of the universal values of freedom, equality and love, in that order.
Although Taiwan proper is just a tiny island, Taiwanese and world cultures exist together in symbiosis. The members of the Formosa political group knew how to connect with these universal values — they did not only shout slogans in favor of Taiwan while forgetting about all humanity and culture. In particular, they worked hard to become part of global mainstream values.
What is needed now is a new force that is capable of challenging and fighting the old forces of the pan-blue and pan-green camps, and this new force must be led by its ideals. If it is only focused on recruiting members and supporters while lacking ideals, vision or policies, it will not be capable of leaving much of a mark.
An ideal can glue people together, which is necessary for their unity be meaningful. It should be able to glue older, middle and younger generations together, and it should also integrate elites from both the pan-blue and pan-green camps. That would be the only way that the group would be able to fulfill society’s needs.
Taiwan has suffered splits and confrontation for far too long, and it now needs a force that promotes cooperation and harmony. Opposition to the cross-strait service trade agreement and the government’s lack of transparency are simply the views of a campaign that cannot be approached as the values on which to form a party.
Taiwan needs a new party for the 21st century. For those with the lofty aspiration to inherit the “fight for Taiwan,” please propose your ideals first and let them lead you, do not spend all your time gathering members and forming coteries. We must learn from history and the wisdom of those who went before; we should not throw them away like a pair of old worn-out shoes.
Arrogance is far too often the result of a narrow worldview, like that of a frog in a well, and exclusion and discrimination is the pointed dagger of those who lack confidence.
Shih Ming-te is a long-time political activist and chairman of the Shih Ming-te Foundation. A founding member of the Democratic Progressive Party, he resigned from the party in November 2000.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS