The Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) election losses might not have been completely unexpected for most people, but their extent probably was.
In just a few months, someone with no roots in Kaohsiung managed to build momentum and win the city’s mayoral election — was this really because he is such an incredible guy? It all came down to the central government’s failures — manna from heaven, so to speak.
The party was also given a drubbing in Taichung. Was it all really a matter of the local government having done such a bad job or the opponent being such a fantastically strong challenger?
No, it was none of that: It was a direct reaction to the central government’s poor performance.
This is not the kind of talk that top officials, and especially the president, want to hear, nor would they ever admit to it being true. They would flatly reject the idea, claiming that the elections had nothing to do with the central government.
Taiwan is geographically small — little distance separates the central government from the various levels of local government — but even if the US and large European nations were twice or three times as big and had considerably bigger populations, the same thing would hold true: The national government’s performance has a direct effect on local elections.
If the national government performs badly, the ruling party will be in for a difficult time in local elections. This is Politics 101 — a party that does not grasp this might as well go home.
Last year, people said that “reform” might be a pretty word, but that there was a logical order to things and reforms should not be implemented in a batch, all at the same time.
Did anyone in the government listen? No. The government pushed through the “one mandatory day off, one flexible rest day” work week reform, same-sex marriage and pension reform without stopping to think.
A politically savvy leader might have been satisfied with the party asset and judicial reforms and left the other reforms, which would likely have a greater effect on the elections, for their second term. Had that been the case, Taiwan probably would not be faced with the current ugly situation.
This is not a case of 20/20 hindsight. Ask any five people and they would all say that it was too hasty to push through all five reforms at the same time — no one runs a nation that way, that no one deals with reform that way.
Implementing reforms that way only has a negative effect on reform momentum.
National leaders worldwide — including in the US and China — all suffer from the same disease: They are obstinate, self-opinionated, arrogant, convinced of their own excellence and think that honest advice is jarring on the ear. Anyone who wants to succeed must avoid these shortcomings.
Reform is not easy, but changing a leader’s thinking and character is even more difficult. Only giving up preconceived notions will lead to new possibilities — only listening to honest advice will lead to a road forward. Without this approach, mistakes will be repeated and defeat will be certain. This is honest advice — I wonder if anyone is listening.
Chuang Sheng-rong is a lawyer.
Translated by Perry Svensson
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS