A corruption scandal implicating six former and incumbent lawmakers has tarnished the image of all political parties involved, but none has taken more damage than the New Power Party (NPP), which has been pushed to the verge of implosion.
Taipei City councilors Lin Ying-meng (林穎孟) and Huang Yu-fen (黃郁芬) on Tuesday last week quit the party, followed by the exit of former NPP chairman Hsu Yung-ming (徐永明), one of the six implicated, and the resignation of 10 NPP Decisionmaking Committee members a day later.
Lin and Huang’s exit has greatly weakened the popularity of the party. The only remaining NPP members that have national recognition are former NPP executive chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), Kaohsiung City Councilor Huang Jie (黃捷) and legislators Chiu Hsien-chih (邱顯智), Claire Wang (王婉諭) and Chen Jiau-hua (陳椒華).
This is not the first time that the party is at risk of falling apart. Former NPP legislator Kawlo Iyun Pacidal was last year expelled from the party over allegations that her assistants had secured subsidies totaling NT$4 million (US$135,501 at the current exchange rate) from the Ministry of Economic Affairs for associations that they had set up.
The incident indirectly triggered the exits of then-NPP legislators Freddy Lim (林昶佐), now an independent legislator, and Hung Tzu-yung (洪慈庸), whose position on whether to support President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), who was seeking re-election, differed from that of members close to the party’s inner circle. This difference of opinion later that year also prompted the departure of Taipei City Councilor Lin Liang-chun (林亮君) and party member Wu Cheng (吳崢), who reportedly quit due to grievances over the NPP leadership flirting with the idea of teaming up with Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) in the Jan. 11 presidential and legislative elections.
The NPP was born out of the Sunflower movement and its predominantly young supporters who wanted to reform Taiwan’s politics. Its establishment saw the media use the term “third force.” However, its short history of less than six years is fraught with allegations of graft, infighting and conflicts over collaboration with other parties. It has let its supporters down and must choose whether to carry out systemic reforms or be absorbed by the TPP.
If it chooses the former, it must resolve the conflict between its inner circle and its members. Despite Hsu having left the NPP, the party’s inner circle largely comprises members who are close to Huang Kuo-chang, whose clique was reportedly responsible for driving away Lim, Hung and other prominent former members.
If the NPP cannot even allow all of its members to have a fair say in party affairs, its calls to establish its ideals and standards on collaborations with other parties would be nothing more than empty talk.
More importantly, it must vow to never be involved in corruption scandals again and work doubly hard to win back public trust before the local elections in November 2022.
The NPP has so far fought off the temptation of collaborating with the TPP, whose support base largely overlaps with its own. If a partnership with the TPP proves more successful than going it alone, chances are that the NPP would eventually be absorbed. The partnership would surely result in a formidable third force, but given Ko’s questionable cross-strait stance, it would not necessarily bode well for the nation.
The NPP must now contemplate its fate or join the list of Taiwan’s sidelined political parties. Its troubles have plunged the future of the third force into uncertainty.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS