Taiwan - The slide in morals and honesty

For a journalist, it is not the done thing to continually write about the same subject time after time, no matter how important you feel the subject is. Even if you strongly believe in something, a writer cannot just bombard their readers with the same narrative.  

Those of you who have read my previous columns about my concerns over the behavior of some Taiwanese politicians in terms of honesty and morality, you will find little new in the following paragraphs. Nevertheless, this also addresses wider issues about the forthcoming Presidential election and I feel it is worth repeating.

This is all ahead of probably the most important Presidential election Taiwan has seen since democracy was established after martial law was lifted in 1987.    

China’s daily and savage provocation with fighter jets and warships would not be tolerated by any other of the 195 countries in the world, barring parts of the Middle East and between North and South Korea. Such diabolical and open aggression means the choice of the next Taiwan President is more important than it has been since suffrage was established, otherwise democracy could disappear in Taiwan, forever. 

The heightened aggression, together with the West’s rock-solid support for Taiwan since the invasion of Ukraine, means Taiwan’s next leader has a stark decision…lean towards the West, or lean towards China. 

Not to put too fine a point on it, the choice is to keep Taiwan as it is and bolster its standing in the world, or kowtow and turn it into something akin to Hong Kong and the slippery slope that entails in terms of fading democracy and self determination. 

The slide in morals and honesty we see with politicians overseas on a regular basis seems to have normalized a pattern of behavior on a wider scale and we seem to be seeing a greater  slackening of ethical standards and integrity in Taiwan among those who aspire to lead. 

The UK’s Boris Johnson was removed from office for his shameless lies and behavior and former president Donald Trump has just been indicted for a fourth time on felony charges, this time for working to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

These situations are unprecedented and have set a new low in political behavior. My fear is local politicians are being tempted to ape such practices with the view that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. 

Corrupt practices have seem to have caught up with Anne Gao who has been released on a bail of TWD 600,000 as part of an investigation into allegations she made fraudulent payroll deductions and misused public funds.

Straightforward corruption like this is one thing but more insidious dishonesty has also crept into the Taiwan political arena with half-truths and downright lies being peddled as fact. It would all seem to be straight out of the Johnson/Trump playbook and some politicians appear to think it is acceptable behavior.

A perfect example of this is the recent assertion that all the Taiwan government’s budget figures are  fake. It’s almost exactly the same assertion made by ex-president Trump that the 2020 US election result was fixed, otherwise known as “The Big Lie.”

There has been a lack of any evidence to back up the assertion despite many investigations and recounts and it was never proved. Trump now finds himself heading for court to face trial for blatant lies that the election was stolen and his efforts to get the result overturned. 

If the current DDP government is faking the budget numbers, where is the evidence? How easy it is to say something like this to sow the seeds of doubt into voters minds and maybe swing the result.

If there is hard evidence, let’s see it. Or is your moral compass so lacking that lies trip so lightly to your lips if you see there might be some political mileage in it. 

Are we seeing those running for the presidency simply lying like Johnson and Trump to try and gain political points? Has Taiwan politics really sunk that low? The comparisons are becoming startling, and frightening. 

As Chinese general, strategist, philosopher, and writer Sun Tzu said the “wheels of justice grind slow but grind fine” and while they more quickly caught up with Boris Johnson, they are only just catching up with Donald Trump. 

The sad fact is some politicians now believe it is somehow justified to lie and deal in half-truths if it achieves the ultimate goal of power.  How can such easy liars be trusted? 

High level officials told me - really? Who? US officials told me - really? Who?  

Are politicians who indulge themselves with easy statements and don’t feel the need to provide background or evidence to be trusted? 

Can they be trusted to stick to their word over the really big issue of the future relationship with China? How can they be trusted to even come close to keeping election promises if they do win power.

British voters were sharply disappointed with Boris Johnson as a leader after his grand but now proven shallow lies. Americans corrected their 2016 blunder in 2020 by getting rid of Donald Trump and his subsequent rantings and lies about the stolen 2020 election. 

I hope and pray Taiwanese voters are not disappointed with the outcome of their election in January next year when it comes to voting in a leader who fills the role of being a statesman able to deal on the global stage at the same level as other world leaders.  

Particularly when it comes to dealing with China and Taiwan’s allies overseas. Lies or half-truths will not cut it when they are talking to those guys on your behalf.

Tinkerty Tonk...

Economics 101 -2

Despite the Cat’s best efforts translating the interview, I can’t for the life of me understand what Ko is talking about when he says Taiwan is in a Middle Income Trap. 

A Middle Income country is defined by the World Bank as one with a Gross National Income (GNI) per capita between USD1,036 and 12,535. Taiwan currently has a GNI per capita of USD33,565, slightly higher than that of South Korea. Broadly speaking both countries have been returning similar figures for years.

China apparently managed to escape the trap around 2015 and now has a GNI per capita of around USD20,000, but given the size of the economy many economists still consider this to be low enough for it to be considered to be still stuck in the trap.

Taiwan successfully escaped the middle-income trap a couple of decades ago, helped by a democratic political system, the nurturing of high-value-added technology industries, for example TSMC, and reduced levels of economic inequality.

Now, Taiwan is actually in danger of falling into a high-income trap, because of its low birth rate, a potential for greater inequality and growing political polarization.

Maybe Ko is mistaken in his terminology and means Middle Class Income which is an entirely  different thing and it has to be said that wage disparity and the income gap, particularly in terms of young people, does urgently need to be addressed.

But to say Taiwan is in a Middle Income Trap is economic nonsense. It appears Ko read it somewhere but as usual didn’t bother to read it carefully and understand it before trotting it out in this interview trying to sound like he knows what he’s talking about. 

Another Pie in the Face FAIL, I’m afraid. 

Tinkerty Tonk…

The cancer of political lies

It appears gorging on lies for political gain gives instant gratification and quickly fattens a political career, but if carried to excess leads to a bloated and ugly monster unable to move or dodge the inevitable retribution of crass and unforgivable behaviour.

Those who watch global politics will instantly know the two ex-leaders, Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, who are currently the best examples of this. 

What worries me is that others around the world, particularly wannabe leaders, are aping this appalling behaviour as an easier route to power than being honest with the electorate and decent in their behaviour within their own democratic process. 

It is a desperately depressing thought that such conduct appears to have found its way to Taiwan and is manifest ahead of what is a crucial presidential election early next year where the overriding, vitally important, beat-all topic is the relationship with China.

On this vital subject we are already seeing obfuscation, avoidance and outright lies. Which is no real surprise given the - to my mind - absurd One China Principle, the One China with respective interpretations (1992 Consensus) and the One China policy as the United States see it as a policy of strategic ambiguity regarding Taiwan.

So where are you and I? Are we caught up in a democracy with one party who apparently wants to say and pursue the unspeakable “I” word, but cannot, and a party, or parties, who clearly want to be closer to China but cannot actually say that out loud.  

To date, it would seem ‘we the people’ are stuck a cleft stick unable to decade much either way as to definite policies that might be put in place and can only guess until our final decision at the ballot box on the day. 

Most of the current political rhetoric is vague at best on the vital issue of China and there is huge room for disappointment if, for example, the next president decides to embrace China and moves away from the current status quo. 

Divide and conquer - the Latin phrase “Divide et impera” is as old as politics and war. It is  attributed to Julius Cesar and he successfully applied it to conquer Gaul (France) over two thousand years ago. It is wholly at work in Taiwan with the two more pro-China candidates happy to trot out their old and tired lines on China which is leaving many confused as to their ultimate motives should they gain power.

Does a vote for them mean a vote for a closer relationship with China? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t but at the moment everyone is having to guess because they are not brave enough to actually give solid guidance as to their intentions. They simply mouth platitudes. 

Having just watched two of the world’s leading nations fall facelong into the trap set by lying and gaslighting politicians, I would hate for Taiwan to fall into the same trap, given the repercussions are so massively life changing compared to our Trump and Johnson examples.

Boris Johnson’s lies and deceit, mainly about Brexit, certainly helped propel him to power in July 2019 but his continued lies about other issues saw him unceremoniously kicked out of office by his own party and he has since even resigned as a member of parliament because of a damning report finding him guilty of misleading the British Parliament. 

China is a huge conundrum for Taiwanese voters which is more acute, but not unlike, the choice faced by the electorate in the United Kingdom before the absurd referendum over Britain’s membership of the European Union. Sadly the British public voted to break ties with the European Union and the “Sunny Uplands” promised by Boris Johnson’s lies and they voted for him in droves. 

“Get Brexit done” was his slogan but the British people now regret leaving Europe with a poll last month showing 55 percent of Brits thought that it was wrong to leave the European Union, compared with just 34 percent who thought it was the right decision. Many complain they were lied to by Johnson and his government about the benefits of Brexit.

It would be terribly sad if Taiwanese voters end up regretting their choice of next president in the coming months and years if China is allowed more influence over their lives through a Sino-friendly administration. Then it will be too late. 

Johnson’s short-lived political career may have crashed and burned but it certainly is not as spectacular as ex-president Donald Trump’s clownish pitch for the Republican presidential nomination in November 2024. 

Mired in lawsuits ranging from mishandling state secrets to accusations he paid off a porn star, Trump’s legal woes are manifest. He is facing charges in two criminal investigations, and was ordered to pay millions of dollars to a writer after being found liable for sexual abuse.

He is also under investigation for his alleged efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat.

As ridiculous as it may seem he is still hugely popular in the United States even though he is the  first president to be indicted twice. 

A poll by ABC News and Ipsos conducted after his second indictment was consolidating more and more support from the people who believe his federal indictment was politically motivated  and is considered as the front-runner for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.

The roller-coaster of insanity and lies since Trump was kicked out of office in 2020 continues to divide America and has certainly shaken faith in the democratic process. Polls show there is little enthusiasm about the 2024 presidential front-runners and there is continued alarm about U.S. institutions.

Seven out of 10 Americans agree with the statement that American democracy is "imperilled," according to a new USA TODAY/Suffolk University poll ahead of Independence Day (July 4). 

Gaslighting, half-truths, misdirection and downright lies have damaged these once great democracies and left electorates questioning whether their political systems are severely broken and requiring major repair.

Taiwan may be tiny in comparison but its democracy is solid. The danger is that copycat politicians here see lying and misdirection as the new normal and will indulge themselves to gain political power. 

Plenty of damage and disappointment can result because the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow and by the time lying and incompetent politicians are found out and dealt with in the proper manner, the damage has been done. Just look at the United States and the United Kingdom.

Tinkerty Tonk...

Power Sharing?

I had to set aside my usual assumption that Dr Ko is stuck together with stupid glue, when I was told he was openly saying that if he wins the Presidency he will form an all-party coalition to run the country.

Of course, I immediately had to start making assumptions again, like, he would be good to his word and do such a thing in the highly unlikely event that he wins, but let’s for a moment give him the benefit of the doubt. 

This is actually a fairly astute ploy, as there is broadly no downside but potentially a fair amount of upside in terms of attracting votes. It won’t impact the thinking of those who pay attention and take an interest in politics, who will immediately know it is nonsense, but for those who don’t it could be a vote catcher for him.

There are many people who take zero interest in politics and there is also a great swathe of the population who broadly dislike all politicians - as I do myself, quite frankly. 

For these groups, casting their ballot on the day is a chore and many just don't bother. 

For those who feel they should vote but can’t be bothered to pay close attention to dozens of promises and speeches in the run-up…voting for what they think is a coalition means they can vote for everybody at the same time..YAY. 

Their conscience is clear that they have indeed preserved democracy and voted, and a coalition means all political views will get an airing in any decision so everything will be great, right? Wrong!

A potential flaw is that if he wins, he won’t give up the power and share it with coalition partners. Ko has proved many times that he is self-centered and power hungry. 

The other, and fatal, flaw is that even if he does win he has no control over what happens in Parliament in terms of who makes up the majority, via a coalition or not. It is not up to him to decide. 

So once again, gentle reader, my initial assumption was correct that he has fallen out of a stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.    

Nevertheless, for those who take little interest in politics, the promise of some vague notion of power sharing between the parties might throw a few votes his way that he otherwise might not have attracted. 

Tinkerty Tonk   

Deputy Denny

（中文在下方）

Good Evening Boys and Girls. Auntie Cat and Uncle Squirrel played a fun game today. Can you guess what game we played? 

That’s right, we played Spot the Oaf!

Can you also guess which one we spotted? 

Well done, right again… it was none other than the New Taipei City Mayor who the KMT have, in a somewhat distracted way, chosen as their presidential candidate for the election next year. Mind you, their field of potential choices was thinner than Terry Gou’s toupee so it was pretty much as expected.  

Our jovial coconut-headed Cop looked caszh in jeans and open-necked shirt, threw regulation police salutes to an adoring crowd looking for all the world like he was ready to charge into the next hail of bullets that happens along to save everyone from harm and do the right thing by everyone, oh, and the ROC, of course.

Strikes me, that is kind of what he always says when asked questions ranging from foreign policy to wind-farms. He will always guarantee he will do the right thing and stand up for the ROC. 

Odd how it all sounds like the oath he recited when joined up as a fresh-faced rookie cop all those decades ago. 

”I swear solemnly that I will well and truly abide by national laws and dedicate myself to serving our country; perform the duties and exercise the power by the law. I will serve the people to my best of knowledge and skill in a humble and peaceful manner.”

Although he’s obviously forgotten the “humble” bit.

Tinkerty Tonk...

Good evening boys and girls! 天花板上的貓阿姨和松鼠叔叔今天玩了一個有趣的遊戲，你能猜出我們玩的是什麼遊戲嗎？沒錯，我們玩了 Spot the Oaf！

Oaf 是什麼？A man who is rough or clumsy and unintelligent. 粗糙笨拙而且不聰明的人，我們英國人常用來形容無趣之人的一個字。

你能猜出我們發現了哪一個 oaf 嗎？又猜對了！就是國民黨在明年的總統選舉中，有點心不在焉地選擇了個參選人。不過請注意，他們的潛在選擇範圍，比泰瑞郭的假髮要薄，所以這個結果跟預期也所差無幾。

新聞照片上我們快樂的椰子頭警察，穿著牛仔褲和開領襯衫看起來很休閒，向一群崇拜者煞有介事舉手敬禮，就像他已經準備好衝進下一場槍林彈雨中，拯救每一個人讓他們免受傷害，為每一個人做正確的事，哦，當然還有為了中華民國這個國家。

讓我印象深刻的是，當被問及從外交政策到風電場的問題時，他總是這麼說，他保證他會好好做事，並為台灣挺身而出。

奇怪的是，這一切聽起來多麼像幾十年前他作為一名菜鳥警察加入時，宣誓背誦的警察人員誓言。

「余誓以至誠，恪遵國家法令，盡忠職守，報效國家；依法執行任務，行使職權；勤謹謙和，為民服務。如違誓言，願受最嚴厲之處罰，謹誓。」

雖然他顯然忘記了「 謙和」的部分。

Tinkerty Tonk... 掰掰！

Passport please - and what is the purpose of your visit?

There have been many highly educated and knowledgeable leaders throughout history with finely tuned intellects, sharp analytical skills, a deep and abiding humanity and an uncanny ability to build and achieve the best outcome for oftimes seemingly impossible situations.

These are the people whose memory endures, are revered in the history books and are rightly lauded as having benefited mankind, be it in a broad, or narrow sense.

Of course, with greatness comes ego. By definition such people have to possess self-esteem and belief in themselves to achieve great things. It is when this self-belief spills over into conceit that negatives begin to become manifest. Or when pure egotists let rip and march ahead regardless without the attendant knowledge or skills to handle a situation properly.  

Albert Einstein, certainly one of the smartest people who ever walked the earth, viewed ego as a simple equation. Ego = 1/Knowledge

Using this simple equation it’s easy to look back and know immediately where ego was, or is,  justified in our leaders.

Which is why my old British heart sank when I heard that failed, widely ridiculed, figure-of-fun and worthless Parliamentarian ex-UK Prime Minister Mary Elizabeth Truss was to visit my adopted homeland apparently to pontificate about Taiwan’s geopolitical situation.

Alongside like-minded UK politicians, I think her visit is a bad idea. Not because I don’t fully support foreign politicians, diplomats and intellectuals coming here to support Taiwan and President’s Tsai’s geopolitical stance, but because, sadly, she is just too stupid to add anything meaningful to the debate, and could, indeed, do harm. 

That may sound harsh, but it is based on fact. She recently broke the record for the shortest-serving Prime Minister in British history by serving just 45 days, beating the record by several weeks and that of someone who died in office in 1827 after 119 days. She effectively bankrupted the UK economy with ill-thought out and entirely ridiculous tax policies. 

In the British weekend papers, which held Truss as “the disgraced former prime minister” a fellow British member of parliament described her trip as a vanity project to help Truss “keep herself relevant.” Her fellow Conservative MP, Alicia Kearns went on to say the trip was “the worst kind of Instagram diplomacy” and Truss’s confrontational antics could make things worse for Taiwan. Her trip is "performative, not substantive," Kearns added.

Which takes me back to Einstein's equation. If you do the maths the ego comes out at close to infinitely large as one divided by something very tiny is close to infinity. 

Truss is not a thinker and has never shown her knowledge of global affairs as anything by trite. Her massive U-turn on Brexit is famous in the UK as she turned from once an enthusiastic backer of the UK's EU membership and voting "Remain" in the 2016 referendum and speaking out of the need to remain in the EU's single market which she described as “so precious” to undergoing a remarkable and almost instantaneous transformation into an ardent backer of Brexit when she saw it could gain her some political capital at home.

We all put up with political lightweights, generally know who they are, and the democratic process eventually weeds them out. It’s not perfect, by any means, but it’s the best process we have. There are shameless political shape-changers, Truss is one of them. 

What I object to is when the selfish motives of intellectual lightweights with massive egos and  their eye only on boosting their own political future in their own country, decide to stick their nose where it is not really wanted. Ergo UK Member of Parliament Mary Elizabeth Truss.

My heartfelt thanks to those politicians, diplomats and others who come to Taiwan with the aim of lending support and genuine help. But please, if you think just because Taiwan is a global headline story at the moment, a visit is easy and might just do your standing at home some good, stay away, please. I very much suspect, as do many others in the UK, that these are Truss’s motives with this trip.

I am certain President Tsai is smart enough not to actually share a platform with what is one of the dullest knives in the UK political kitchen, and that any meeting will be low key and not for the record. Truss is just an MP so I guess diplomatic protocol dictates a one-on-one is highly unlikely. 

The MOFA website is, of course, diplomatic in its language, welcoming her visit to “strengthen the already close and friendly ties between Taiwan and the United Kingdom.” 

The rest of the wording must have been a bit of a struggle for them as history shows her all too brief involvement in cross-strait affairs first as UK secretary of state for foreign, commonwealth and development affairs for just one year and then as Prime Minister for a flash-dance 45 days.

The poor old MOFA people had to make the right noises and they did a good job, but I would take issue with their use of Truss having ”long been” a staunch supporter of Taiwan. Given her record on policy U-turns, her cat-like ability to chase a laser pointer green dot will only last as long as a red-feather becoming more interesting and worthy of her attention.

I really hope her visit achieves something positive in the form of military aid and in Truss’s words “hard power” for Taiwan, I really do. I just somehow doubt it as she no longer has any political clout, so be prepared for disappointment, for all the above reasons. I really hope I’m proved wrong.

Taiwan needs friends, of that there is no doubt and it would be churlish and dangerous to refuse entry to anyone willing to speak out on its behalf. After all, the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend as the old saying goes. It is just much more constructive to encourage those with real clout. 

Of course the government could not have refused permission for Truss to come but the real danger in this particular case is she may do or say something that is actually damaging to relationships with other countries which are of material help. Just look at her recent history and it is not unreasonable to describe her as a one-woman disaster zone.

I am not the only one thinking she is grabbing a selfish political opportunity by inserting herself into a story which will carry global headlines, much as other politicians have used Ukraine. 

Believe me, if the Taiwan situation was not such a global headline grabber, she would not be here. 

Of course, the cynical journalist in me might suggest having had loads of play in the British press at the weekend with some well-timed comments the Truss entourage will leave Taiwan on May 20, which just happens to be a Saturday and just in time for a huge round of weekend press briefings and interviews. 

Perhaps I misjudge her, and the now irrelevant ex-PM had no such thing in mind, but I very much doubt it. 

I would so like to be the Immigration Officer stamping her passport today... "Welcome to Taiwan, and what exactly is the  purpose of your visit?”

Tinkerty Tonk...

Realpolitik eases into Taiwan politics

The starting pistol for Taiwan’s January 2024 presidential election has been fired, with the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) declaring Vice-President William Lai as their Presidential candidate. 

The ex-Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je has declared as candidate for the four year-old Taiwan People's Party (TPP) and Terry Gou has thrown his hat in the ring to represent Kuomintang (KMT), although the party has yet to choose its official contender.

Rather than a proper war of words it has all kicked off with the more usual pussy-footing around semantics that has for so long been the hallmark of Taiwan politics.

Former Premier William Lai once said in the Legislative Yuan, "I am indeed a worker for Taiwan independence," and also "the 1992 Consensus has no consensus at all." Lai has said Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country, which obviously antagonised Beijing. 

The rage-filled government mouthpiece the Global Times criticised Lai's "extreme presumptuous attitude" and threatened to ask the Chinese government to use the "Anti-Secession Law" to issue a "global arrest warrant" against Lai.

So all the usual bluster and tub-thumping over the all too sensitive ‘I’ word but it is notable that Lai’s comments softened since. He said that it was out of respect for Zheng Nanrong, "I am indeed a worker for Taiwan independence, but compared to Mr. Zheng Nanrong, I am just a follower of Taiwan independence, and follow the ideas of our predecessors to carry out this work.”

Politicians have to be flexible in their sometimes vain efforts to keep as much of the electorate on-side as possible. A vocal pro-Independence DDP candidate may well put off voters who are worried about hard-line action from China and would not vote for a party who they see as likely to anger the mainland. On the other hand many DDP voters do not want closer ties with China and would be put off if the prospective President was too conciliatory towards our 'friends' to the West.

What we see, and have seen, in Taiwan politics is Realpolitik which is a system of politics or principles based on practical, rather than moral or ideological considerations. Realpolitik is the idea that the world is ruthless and you have to act realistically, even if it causes other things to happen that are bad, or decisions have to be made that upset your people.

Broadly speaking, it is statecraft where the pragmatic triumphs over dogma.  

The KMT is on a similar hook when it comes to the 1992 Consensus and "one China, different interpretations" In other words the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China agree that there is one China, but disagree about what "China" means.

It is a ridiculous spaghetti of meaningless words that leaves most right thinking people scratching their heads, but is deeply ingrained in the KMT’s psyche and underpins the notion both at home and abroad that the party is pro-China.  

As the KMT ponders its choice of Presidential candidate, you have to wonder if they might be considering if a dogmatic stance on the 92 Consensus might do it damage in 2024 when people head to the ballot boxes. Would a shift away be enough to convince those who do not want closer ties with China to safely vote for the KMT.

It seems KMT liberals already want to set the 92 Consensus aside but it appears not to have been popular with others in the party. That said, former KMT President Ma Ying-jeou’s recent trip to China which can only be described as fawning and servile, must be worrying campaign managers as it sends a strong, albeit unofficial, message to the voting public that the KMT is quietly but  aggressively pro-China. They don’t seem to have done much to distance themselves from Ma’s comments during the trip. 

Its campaign managers must also be concerned about the Taiwan People's Party splitting the KMT vote as it would seem the former mayor would benefit more from disaffected KMT voters than disaffected DPP voters. 

The addition of the TPP into the mix in January 2024 could throw a spanner in the works. Ko has pretty much said he is happy to play a spoiling role in Taiwan politics and, while he hasn’t said as much, would love to be the King-Maker in any coalition negotiations. 

This would not be dissimilar to the situation faced by the United Kingdom’s (UK) David Cameron in the 2010 election where a narrow victory meant he had to share power with the third largest party, the Liberal Democrats. The power sharing took the form of the Conservative/Lib-Dem coalition with Cameron as Prime Minister and Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister. 

I should hastily add that such a situation looks extremely unlikely to occur in Taiwan given current opinion polls are leaning quite heavily towards the DPP.

But as British Prime Minister Harold Wilson said in 1964 “A week is a long time in politics” and much could happen in the coming nine months. Something drastic could happen to upset the apple cart. 

One can only wonder what would happen if the KMT openly abandoned its stance on the 92 Consensus? Such an apparently dramatic move has worked in the past, most notably for Tony Blair’s Labour Party in the run up to the 1997 UK general election. 

Blair dragged the Labour party away from the left towards the centre of British politics by abandoning Clause 4 which was enshrined in the Labour Party Rule Book. It was widely seen as the Labour Party's commitment to socialism, even though the word "socialism" is not explicitly mentioned.

Blair battled within the party to rewrite Clause 4 and eventually won. It was the rebranded New Labour, and won a resounding victory at the 1997 general election, crushing the right-wing Conservatives and going on to win three more elections and an unbroken 13 years in power.  It certainly was not the only factor in the huge victory but it succeeded in making the party more electable as far as the voters were concerned. 

Blair’s brave and pragmatic move to rid himself of old left-wing party dogma that had been in the Labour Party rule book for eighty years was risky. It certainly upset many in his party and Labour voters across the land but was Realpolitik in action, and worked.

As far as Realpolitik is concerned, the DPP’s Lai emphasised there is no question of Taiwan's unification or independence, pointing out that Taiwan is already a sovereign and independent country and does not need to be independent separately. 

At this stage we can only guess whether the KMT are brave enough to consider a similar move. 

Tinkerty Tonk