After losses in the nine-in-one-elections last month, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has continued to lose ground to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
After the death of independent candidate Huang Shao-tsung (黃紹聰), the Chiayi mayoral election was postponed to Dec. 18, when the KMT scored another victory in a city dubbed “the hub of democracy.”
For a legislative by-election in Taipei, which is to be held on Jan. 8 to fill the seat vacated by newly elected Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安), the odds also favor the KMT’s candidate over the DPP’s.
In the wake of its worst local election defeats in recent memory, the DPP is still engaged in soul-searching and Taiwanese are eagerly awaiting three changes: in party leadership, a Cabinet reshuffle, and a review of policies and strategies.
Taking responsibility for the defeat, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) stepped down as DPP chairperson, a development that did not come as a surprise. As there is no “party-state” system under the DPP, Tsai’s move did not affect the power balance between the presidency, the five branches of government and the party.
Only Vice President William Lai (賴清德) has signed up as a candidate in the upcoming chairperson election, a development widely seen as a sign that he is also seeking to run for president.
However, the nomination process of the DPP’s presidential candidate and the campaigning that Lai would have to pursue pose a challenge for him. Behind closed doors, there is still a lot of rivalry within the DPP. Lai would not only have to make the right decisions, but do so at the right time, with the right people backing him.
With the presidential election more than a year away, it remains to be seen whether Lai can exercise his political dexterity to create common ground among the party’s factions and turn the tide for the DPP.
The awaited Cabinet reshuffle poses another challenge.
In 2018, when then-Kaohsiung mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) of the KMT garnered enthusiastic support for his presidential bid, Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) was called in to become premier, and the DPP subsequently scored a victory.
However, since Su took office, the DPP suffered election defeats, despite having guided Taiwan through the COVID-19 pandemic.
The then-DPP mayors of Hsinchu and Taoyuan did not run for re-election last month, as they had reached their term limits, and the DPP failed to field the right candidates to succeed them. To make matters worse, DPP politicians such as former Hsinchu mayor Lin Chih-chien (林智堅) were embroiled in plagiarism scandals, and it would be awkward for the party to promote them to positions in the Cabinet.
Moreover, if Su steps down as premier, it would weaken the government until a successor takes his position. The situation would be similar to that of Hsu Kuo-yung (徐國勇), who has filed his resignation as minister of the interior, but a successor has not yet been sworn in.
As the Presidential Office and the five branches of government have not released any statements regarding resignations, the Executive Yuan’s inaction in the wake of last month’s election defeats is bewildering. If there is no Cabinet reshuffle, those in power should know more than anyone that it would be difficult to garner support for the upcoming presidential and legislative elections.
A person hit in the head might pass out for a while. The situation is similar for the DPP, which is still reeling from the heavy blow dealt by the nine-in-one elections. Some critics have pointed the finger at presumed fatigue among Taiwanese of the DPP’s foreign policy regarding China, with its “oppose China, safeguard Taiwan” slogan.
Meanwhile, the KMT, which promotes a foreign policy based on the so-called “1992 consensus” and “avoiding war and suing for appeasement,” has been relishing in its victory.
The so-called “1992 consensus,” a term former Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) in 2006 admitted making up in 2000, refers to a tacit understanding between the KMT and the Chinese government that both sides of the Taiwan Strait acknowledge there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “China” means.
However, the DPP stance of “opposing communism and safeguarding Taiwan” is not at fault for its candidates’ defeats, as it is in line with the global trend. In the local elections, the KMT performed better than the DPP based on its greater ability to set the discourse and disseminate information, not its policies.
Compared with 2018, turnout in last month’s elections was low. From a nonpartisan point of view, the local elections showed that Taiwanese have been frustrated with the COVID-19 situation since May last year, including the management of confirmed cases, people dying from the disease and an economic downturn.
The government lifted pandemic prevention measures in a way that was incomprehensible to many Taiwanese, with some curbs remaining in place to this day. As a result, the governing party only had lukewarm support from the public.
Former minister of health and welfare Chen Shih-chung’s (陳時中) performance in the Taipei mayoral election has been a case in point. His defeat reflects not only his mayoral campaign, but also the DPP’s strategic misjudgements and errors.
The KMT’s relentless attacks on the government’s vaccine policies, especially the use of the Medigen COVID-19 vaccine, affected many Taiwanese who initially saw the nation’s pandemic response as exemplary.
The DPP candidates’ defeats were caused by the party’s failures. The DPP should not bark up the wrong tree when analyzing its weak showing. No matter how good a policy, someone needs to be its advocate.
For example, Taiwan’s excellent performance in curbing the pandemic was ripped to shreds by the KMT. The DPP, while doing nothing about it, has fed Chen — a political neophyte who only has experience in health policy, and lacks political acumen and experience — to the wolves, with more than half of the DPP’s legislators and civil representatives not speaking up for him.
In view of this indifference, compared with the KMT’s brutal attacks and cognitive warfare, many Taiwanese might have wondered whether corruption was involved in the government’s pandemic policies, as alleged by the KMT.
The KMT’s slogan “vote for the DPP and youths go to war” is based on the fallacy that the DPP is to blame for escalating cross-strait tensions. The slogan obfuscates the role of the aggressor and goes against other countries’ understanding of the tensions.
However, no one in the DPP hit back with head-on replies.
Regarding semiconductors, the US is vigorously pushing for de-Sinicization of the global supply chain.
However, the DPP allowed pro-China members of the public to indulge in the notion that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufactoring Co’s investment in the US means a de-Taiwanization of the company. Without the DPP hitting back, the chipmaker had to clarify the issue itself.
As the DPP handed the discursive battlefield over to its opponent, how does it expect to stir support or enthusiasm from independent voters? As long as an election is fair and impartial, voters are the only ones to decide. For the losing party, the most basic remedy would be a complete makeover in terms of Cabinet members and policies.
For last month’s elections, Tsai handpicked the DPP’s candidates, but her former glory has long since faded. A review of policies and a Cabinet reshuffle are the top priorities for the DPP.
Should such a reshuffle be under way, the Formosa Incident faction (made up of the defendants and their defense attorneys involved in the event) would relinquish major positions of power ahead of Tsai passing the baton as the party’s highest-ranking officeholder in 2024.
It will probably be up to the later generations — those that came long after the dangwai (黨外, “outside the party”) movement — to see it through.
The DPP faces the challenge to come up with a new stance, narrative and policies. This might be an opportunity for the party. Picking up the pieces left by former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), Tsai has demonstrated that it is possible for the DPP to regroup and rejuvenate.
However, the party would first have to transform itself to make a comeback. Until the next nationwide elections, pro-Taiwan supporters and their opponents, the US, China and Japan will all be watching closely how things unfold for the DPP.
Translated by Rita Wang
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS