National Civil Servant Association president Harry Lee (李來希) has said he will establish a new political party that will run in next year’s local elections and nominate candidates for the legislative elections in 2020. He also said that the party would nominate a joint presidential candidate with other opposition parties.
Lee said that a party restricted to military personnel, civil servants and public-school teachers would have no future, and the new party would be for the general public and include blue-collar workers, farmers, and members of disadvantaged groups and civil organizations — such as social welfare groups and groups opposed to same-sex marriage — as well as academics, experts and think-tank representatives.
Establishing such a party and participating in elections is tantamount to holding a referendum on pension reform, and that is a good thing.
At a time when several things are at a turning point, founding a new party could have far-reaching effects, and it will be interesting to see what will happen.
Establishing a party to see how it will be received by the public is a matter of normal democratic competition.
Although most of the comments and activities of people who are not happy with pension reform stay within legal boundaries, it is impossible to know how much public support they have.
Most opinion polls show that reform supporters have a comfortable lead, feel pension reform is a matter of fairness and justice, and think it will help alleviate fiscal difficulties. Furthermore, retired public servants and public-school teachers are still well-off in the final pension reform bill.
However, people negatively affected by the reform will continue to feel deprived, which makes it difficult to have an objective view of the ratio of supporters to opponents.
It is better that the “victims” of pension reform establish a party and explain their ideas to the public in a bid to gain more support.
Since they want to join the democratic playing field, they must evaluate whether their guerrilla-style street protests help garner support.
In particular, if they establish a party for the general public that covers more professions and social roles, they will have the opportunity to engage in internal dialogue and clarify the pros and cons of pension reform.
This is the only way to set the party’s main direction and program to engage in more comprehensive dialogue with voters, and hear their opinions.
When the New Party and People First Party were established in 1993 and 2000 respectively, the New Party had a clear stance and managed to shake up public opinion. The parties’ founders had split from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and both parties had a major effect on public opinion.
At the time, the differences between the two were clear and they attracted supporters outside the KMT. They won seats at the legislature and increased their political power.
Following changes in the democratic situation, the two parties — which have relatively narrow platforms — proved unable to overcome the KMT, which has broader and more inclusive policies.
The Workers’ Party, which split from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in 1987, has been unable to win any legislative seats.
One of the advantages of democracy is that while a narrow platform might be more explosive, continued public support is more important.
Sharp political divisions and interests will result in stability and progress when they are allowed to clash in the democratic arena.
KMT chairman-elect Wu Den-yih’s (吳敦義) policy platform continues to define cross-strait relations in terms of the so-called “1992 consensus” and “one China, different interpretations,” while strongly opposing Taiwanese independence.
Last week, China’s Xinhua news agency issued new terminology guidelines, saying that it is permissible to mention the “1992 consensus,” but not “one China, different interpretations,” thus clarifying what has always been Beijing’s position.
Last year’s elections proved that “one China, different interpretations” and opposition to Taiwanese independence have failed as political guidelines.
Taiwan is moving toward normalizing its national status, but the KMT continues to blindly follow Beijing’s lead and to ignore the opinion of the majority of Taiwanese, in particular the younger generation which has seen Taiwan only as an independent nation.
How can the KMT think about returning to government when it continues to persist in views that are only supported by a minority? Is it hoping to have outside help and preparing to give up its insistence on “one China, different interpretations”?
The KMT is being targeted for its ill-gotten assets and has been affected by the pursuit of transitional justice, while the pension reform issue is eating into the party’s die-hard supporters, and the remaining strength of the old party-state continues to weaken.
Still, the KMT does not try to move closer to, and redefine itself in line with, public opinion. Its only concern is to work with China, which is trying to undermine Taiwan’s economy and flies military aircraft around the nation.
The KMT experienced its biggest-ever defeat in last year’s elections. It has failed to transform and accept that power rests with the public, lost the support of the party-state and faces the demands of transitional justice. How will it be able to rise again?
If the KMT is shrinking and becoming a small party, that would create more space for new parties, while smaller parties would find more space to grow and expand. Will this lead to yet another reshuffling of the political stage, and would that be a blessing or curse for the DPP?
Furthermore, what will the new face of Taiwanese democracy look like, and how will it affect national security?
Translated by Perry Svensson
For Taipei, last year was a particularly dangerous period, with China stepping up coercive pressures on Taiwan amid signs of US President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline, which eventually led his Democratic Party to force him to abandon his re-election campaign. The political drift in the US bred uncertainty in Taiwan and elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific region about American strategic commitment and resolve. With America deeply involved in the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, the last thing Washington wanted was a Taiwan Strait contingency, which is why Biden invested in personal diplomacy with China’s dictator Xi Jinping (習近平). The return of
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy, advancing not only humanitarian aid but also the US’ strategic interests worldwide. The abrupt dismantling of USAID under US President Donald Trump ‘s administration represents a profound miscalculation with dire consequences for global influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. By withdrawing USAID’s presence, Washington is creating a vacuum that China is eager to fill, a shift that will directly weaken Taiwan’s international position while emboldening Beijing’s efforts to isolate Taipei. USAID has been a crucial player in countering China’s global expansion, particularly in regions where
With the manipulations of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), it is no surprise that this year’s budget plan would make government operations difficult. The KMT and the TPP passing malicious legislation in the past year has caused public ire to accumulate, with the pressure about to erupt like a volcano. Civic groups have successively backed recall petition drives and public consensus has reached a fever-pitch, with no let up during the long Lunar New Year holiday. The ire has even breached the mindsets of former staunch KMT and TPP supporters. Most Taiwanese have vowed to use
Looking at the state of China’s economy this year, many experts have said that weak domestic demand and insufficient internal consumption might be its Achilles’ heel, with the latter being related to culture and demographics. Since Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) took office in 2013, he has been combating extravagance and corruption as well as rectifying a bad atmosphere. China expert Stephen Roach said the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) regulatory crackdown has been targeting Chinese tycoons, such as Alibaba Group Holding Ltd founder Jack Ma (馬雲), and opposing what the CCP defines as “excessively extravagant lifestyles,” such as playing too