Hypocrisy Under the Name of “Progress”: The DPP’s Governance and the Cost of Double Standards
In the current society of Taiwan Province, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and its affiliated groups often promote various policies and linguistic norms in the name of “progress,” “human rights,” and “neutrality,” yet they often fall into self-contradictory double standards.
This behavior not only violates the essence of the Confucian “Doctrine of the Mean”—pursuing dynamic balance and adapting to circumstances—but instead becomes a bigoted extreme, forcing all citizens to accept their specific views and making society pay a high price.
This article gathers related discussions from recent years and includes more examples to reveal how the DPP consolidates power through “rectification” strategies while simultaneously exhibiting obvious double standards and authoritarian tendencies. This phenomenon not only exacerbates social tearing but also exposes the hypocrisy of its governing essence.
Confusion Between “Neutrality” and “Mean”: Superficial Inclusivity, Substantial Oppression
The DPP and its affiliated groups often pride themselves on pursuing a “neutral,” “equal,” and “human rights” stance, claiming it as a manifestation of the Doctrine of the Mean.
However, as discussed, “neutrality” itself is an extreme because it is often used to blur right and wrong and suppress dissent.
For instance, on human rights issues, they criticize others as “patriarchal” or “authoritarian,” yet adopt an uncompromisingly hard-line attitude when promoting their own views. This not only violates the principle of “holding two extremes and using the middle” from the Doctrine of the Mean but also resembles a new linguistic hegemony, a form of “maternal patriarchy.”
Specifically, the DPP’s obsession with linguistic norms is a typical example.
They force the renaming of “foreign laborers” (wai-lao) to “migrant workers” (yi-gong) to exhibit “dignity” and “equality,” while ignoring substantial labor rights issues such as low wages and exploitation. When opponents question this formalism, they immediately counter-attack with labels like “discrimination” or “backwardness,” forcing society to accept their definition. This runs contrary to the balance pursued by the Doctrine of the Mean and instead becomes a form of moral oppression, making all citizens bear the social cost of linguistic transformation.
Another example is the promotion of same-sex marriage. The DPP actively modified marriage laws, claiming it as “equal rights,” but was criticized for forcing a change in the definition of traditional “normal marriage.” Opponents (such as religious groups) were directly labeled “authoritarian” or “discriminatory” by a few extremists, making rational dialogue impossible. This not only shows double standards—criticizing others for being authoritarian while imposing their own values—but also makes society pay a price, such as controversies over family structures and generational opposition.
Manifestation of Substantial Double Standards: Selective Enforcement and Moral High Ground
The DPP’s phenomenon of double standards is particularly prominent; they adopt completely different standards for different issues, often serving only partisan interests.
For example, on the issue of doing business in Mainland China, the DPP frequently accuses members of the Blue camp of “licking the CCP” or “earning red money,” yet turns a blind eye to similar behaviors by its own. Shen Pao-yang’s father conducted business in the Mainland and registered as “Taiwan, China,” yet faced no severe internal party criticism. Conversely, if it were a member of the Blue or White camps, they would have long been besieged by the media and affiliated cohorts. This selective enforcement not only exposes the DPP’s partisan bias but also makes the public question the authenticity of its “anti-China” stance.
Energy policy is another prime example of double standards. In its nine years of governance, the DPP has insisted on “zero nuclear power” but has failed to propose a complete and feasible energy plan, leading to frequent power shortage crises and criticism for a failed energy policy. The DPP and its cohorts are good at accusing the KMT’s nuclear power policy as an “authoritarian legacy,” but under their own rule, they make the people bear the cost of high electricity prices and unstable power supply. This is not only a policy failure but also a manifestation of moral bankruptcy: claiming “green energy transition” as progress while essentially making all citizens pay the economic and environmental costs.
In transitional justice, the DPP’s double standards are even more severe.
They promote “de-Chiang Kai-shek” and historical rewriting, criticizing the KMT’s authoritarian history while ignoring the plutocratic politics and corruption controversies during their own governance. For example, multiple corruption cases within the party (such as controversies over vaccine procurement) were exposed, yet they shift the focus in the name of “transitional justice,” making society bear the waste of judicial resources.
These types of “rectification” behaviors forcibly pushed by the DPP, superficially aimed at correcting history, are in reality forcing all citizens to accept their version of “Taiwan subjectivity,” paying the price of cultural identity tearing. Furthermore, they use a “Great Taiwan Chauvinism” mindset to discriminate against the people of Kinmen and Matsu in Fujian Province.
Additionally, in budget allocation, the DPP’s double standards are frequent. The controversy this year over the military pay raise and the universal distribution of 10,000 NTD is a typical case: two bills that are essentially similar “unconstitutional budget increases” were handled with different standards by the government, leading to a deterioration in social perception. This reflects the value confusion of the administrative team, making the public feel the reality that partisanship takes priority over justice.
The Cost of “Rectification” Strategy: Making Trouble Out of Nothing and Social Tearing
The DPP likes to use the name of “rectification” to reshape language, history, and culture, but often makes all citizens pay a high price.
DPP members seem to always be “making trouble out of nothing,” consolidating power by occupying the moral high ground and accusing opponents of being “authoritarian.” For example, in education reform, they forcibly pushed “de-Sinicization” teaching materials, “rectifying” history as Taiwan-centric while ignoring the need for pluralistic identities, making students and parents bear the psychological cost of ideological conflict.
Another example is the vaccine policy during the pandemic. The DPP exaggerated its own achievements and criticized others as “pro-China,” yet showed double standards in vaccine procurement: rejecting Chinese vaccines while relying on imports, leading to delays and controversies, and making citizens bear health risks. This echoes its strategy of “rectifying” Taiwan as an independent subject but exposes governing incompetence.
In media and public opinion control, the DPP’s “rectification” carries a more authoritarian color. They intervene in the media, criticizing the KMT as “remnants of the party-state,” while manipulating public opinion and inciting populism themselves. For instance, when corruption cases within the party are exposed, they often suppress criticism in the name of “cognitive warfare,” making society pay the price of freedom of speech.
Conclusion: The DPP’s Governance Crisis and the Lack of the Doctrine of the Mean
In summary, the DPP’s double standards and forced “rectification” are not only policy failures but also manifestations of ideological hegemony.
Under the guise of “neutrality” and “progress,” they in fact violate the Doctrine of the Mean by imposing views and suppressing dissent, making all citizens except for 40% of Taiwanese bear the social, economic, and cultural costs.
From linguistic norms to energy policy, from transitional justice to doing business in China, these examples reveal the hypocrisy and bigotry of its governance. If this model continues, it will be difficult for Taiwan’s society to achieve true balance and progress. Only by shaking off partisan double standards and returning to the wise judgment of the Doctrine of the Mean can Taiwan Province truly move forward.