This article provides a sharp critique of numerous policies and actions of the DPP since it took power. The core argument is that the DPP and its affiliated groups push policies and linguistic norms under the guise of 'progress,' 'human rights,' and 'neutrality.' However, in reality, they fall into double standards and authoritarian tendencies, forcing the society to accept a specific ideology and making all citizens bear the social costs.
The call 'politics out of campus' was once important during Taiwan's democratization, aiming to protect campuses as knowledge and thought sanctuaries from party propaganda infiltration. Yet DPP legislator Fan Yun's recent reinterpretation raises questions: isn't this another DPP 'adapting positions over time' double standard?
The article compares the reactions of KMT supporters (Blue camp) and DPP supporters (Green camp) after election results are announced. The author believes that after the DPP's major defeat in the 2022 local elections, there are significant differences in the emotions of the two camps. The author criticizes the Green camp for often viewing election results as an 'intelligence test' of the people, belittling those who do not vote for them, which is an embodiment of 'double standards.' Regarding emotional reactions, the author observes: after the Blue camp loses, most people just complain a bit and life goes on as usual; but when the Green camp wins, they mock their opponents without limit; and when the Green camp loses, they behave as if the end of the world is coming, even singing 'Island's Sunrise,' questioning if their excessive devotion to a political party they don't know the inside of makes their lives cheap. The conclusion is that when the Blue camp wins, they usually don't kick the opponents while they're down, and life continues as usual.
Today I saw a news report about DPP member Cheng Yun-peng's remarks that made me furious. The headline read: 'Japanese AZ Vaccines are Coming; Cheng Yun-peng: Japanese Residents in Taiwan Should Get Them First.'
Uses the metaphor of a 'magic card' to satirize the perceived double standards and legal protections enjoyed by members of the ruling party in Taiwan, discussing the erosion of institutional neutrality.
Chen Shih-chung even went as far as to say that if opinions differ, he'll see you in court. Is the DPP really okay with a Health Minister who uses taxpayers' money to abuse the state apparatus, waste judicial resources, and threaten to sue people at every turn?
This article raises strong questions about Health Minister Chen Shih-chung's statement during the early stages of COVID-19: 'If epidemic prevention fails, Taiwan is destroyed.' The author criticizes the statement's flawed logic and questions whether the Tsai Ing-wen government's crisis management capability is inferior to even the Chen Shui-bian administration during the SARS era. The article accuses the DPP of politicizing epidemic prevention, whipping supporters into a frenzy purely to maintain electoral advantage. The piece concludes by questioning Chen Shih-chung on when Japan—a country also experiencing outbreaks—would see its nationals restricted from entering Taiwan, implying double standards in epidemic prevention.
This article critiques the Tsai Ing-wen government's decision to strictly prosecute the perpetrators (United Promotion Party) of the red paint splashing incident on Hong Kong singer Denise Ho in Taiwan under serious charges like 'organized crime.' The author argues that this forms a strong 'double standard' compared to the government's decriminalization of perpetrators from the pro-Green camp, such as in the Sunflower Student Movement, by labeling them as 'political incidents.' It questions the government's undermining of freedom of speech in Taiwan and calls this half-baked democracy extremely disgusting, concluding that 'Taiwan will not be better unless the DPP falls.'
This article addresses the 'independent director controversy' surrounding Kuan Chung-ming's NTU presidential candidacy. The university selection regulations never required independent director positions to be disclosed for conflict-of-interest purposes, yet pro-DPP forces spread this baseless political attack through media manipulation and gaslighting.
The article comments on the incident where anti-pension reform groups blocked athletes from entering the opening ceremony of the 2017 Taipei Summer Universiade. It criticizes the 'cheap justice' and hypocrisy of the internet community. The author argues that this incident was less severe than the Sunflower Movement's occupation of the Legislative Yuan and Executive Yuan years ago, questioning why those who shouted 'When dictatorship is a fact, revolution is a duty' now refuse to allow military, public, and teaching personnel to protest. The author accuses netizens of bullying these professionals out of resentment and incompetence, highlighting a double standard compared to their treatment of China Airlines flight attendants' strikes and ignoring more intense protests at major international events abroad.
The article points out that the essence of 'blue-green bitter conflict' is political parties' struggles for their own interests rather than genuine ideological differences, and argues this represents 'cognitive warfare' against people's thoughts. The author criticizes malicious political labels saturating society (such as 'blue worms,' 'Chinese people') and specifically names SET News political discussion programs as full of fallacies and selective arguments. The author uses DPP attorney Guo Zheng-liang's double-standard remarks across different media as an example, expressing concerns about Taiwan's political future being controlled by such hypocritical figures.
An exploration of the 'two sets of standards' prevalent in society. The author observes how different political camps adopt contrasting stances on similar moral failings and extends this to daily life where values are distorted for personal gain. While acknowledging double standards as a human reality, the article asserts that truth holds a single standard and emphasizes the classic principles of self-discipline and integrity.