Following the defeat of the recall campaigns, President William Lai (賴清德) met with former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). Their meeting led me to reflect on Tsai’s tenure: a globally lauded success in pandemic control, yet a dismal performance in the 2022 local elections, which reduced the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to governing only one-quarter of Taiwan’s municipalities.
Furthermore, in last year’s legislative elections, the DPP lost its majority, and Lai’s presidential vote slipped to 40 percent, setting the stage for legislative gridlock.
Tsai’s administration was praised internationally, yet it suffered crushing domestic defeats.
This was due to a failure to firmly implement crucial policies such as transitional justice and judicial reform. The administration lacked the talent, planning and most importantly, the ability to effectively execute government directives. At its core, it missed the mark in addressing the electorate’s underlying expectations.
Contentious policies — such as the abolition of the death penalty and legalizing same-sex marriage, which faced significant resistance — were pushed through with little time for a consensus to form.
Although those reforms were applauded abroad, they sparked profound distaste at home.
Efforts toward carbon reduction and green energy — although necessary — were marred by poor planning and implementation. Officials failed to communicate the policies in an accessible and convincing manner to the public.
The disconnect between the administration and the public became focal points for critique, prompting grassroots supporters to drift away from the DPP, a sentiment that remains unresolved.
Moreover, administrations have turned a blind eye to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) cognitive warfare, allowing their influence to take root and grow.
Statements by Tsai during her presidency such as: “Nobody should apologize for their identity,” and “anyone who comes to Taiwan is Taiwanese, hence they should be able to enjoy everything [rights] that we have,” risked blurring the line of national identity and weakening the mental fortifications of citizens.
Beijing’s tactics have become multifaceted: group trips for Taiwanese local politicians, promoting Taiwan-China tourism, staging cross-strait youth exchange programs, inviting Taiwanese politicians to speak on Chinese state media, and deploying platforms such as TikTok, Xiaohongshu (known in English as RedNote) and e-commerce sites.
Under this sustained campaign, many Taiwanese have come to view peaceful unification as a benign option, blindly believing that CCP rule would not be as oppressive as the DPP cautions.
Taiwanese nationalists have identified this psychological hazard and sounded the alarm to mobilize resistance. However, the CCP’s long-term infiltration has quietly ensnared the public.
Anti-CCP efforts are now often misconstrued as sowing hatred, provoking cross-strait conflict or destabilizing society, and are met with public aversion.
In the recall campaign, the electorate was persuaded, voicing their detest for the chaos caused by the recall groups or annoyance at the potential of being labeled as CCP sympathizers.
Indifference to the outcome of the recall campaign was commonplace, with people cavalier about who governs, as long as they can live idly and peacefully. Overall, there appears to be a sense that the public has had enough of the DPP’s advocations.
Nevertheless, to the people who once condemned the 2014 Sunflower movement for supposedly creating social unrest and destabilizing investments — stock portfolios have grown from 3,000 points to 24,000 points.
Are people only now able to feel the slightest gratitude for those brave students? Or will people continue to profit from their courage, while pretending they never needed it?
Chen You-an is a retired financial professional.
Translated by Lenna Veronica Suminski
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
“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
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