What exactly is the significance of the Taipei and Kaohsiung mayoral elections?
This is a question of interpretation. Sometimes it needs to be viewed within a long-term framework, or scrutinized according to German sociologist Niklas Luhman's "extended causality" principle. However, many instant interpretations made for specific political purposes are neither consistent nor justifiable.
Both the pan-blue camp and the pan-blue media have long invested "special" significance in Taipei and Kaohsiung cities. Their purpose is to promote the blue camp and suppress the green, their ultimate objective being to oust President Chen Shui-bian (
If the pan-blue media's claim is valid, then why didn't anyone say in 1998 that then president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) was elevating then mayor Chen's status when Lee went out and stumped for Chen's challenger, Ma? Why didn't anyone make the city's mayoral race look like a trial match for the presidential election?
What's even more ridiculous is to view the results of Taipei and Kaohsiung mayoral elections as a vote of confidence in Chen. Of course, elections are elimination races, in which the electorate use their votes to decide who's in and who's out.
Naturally, we can say this is a vote of confidence. But in the city mayoral elections, the electorate are casting their votes of confidence in the incumbent mayors. What does it have to do with the president? Only in a presidential election can we have a vote of confidence in the president. A legislative election can also be treated as a vote of confidence in the president, but a mayoral race is only a local government election. Does it have to be pushed upward without limit? The political motivation behind such acts requires scrutiny.
If we really want to talk about a "vote of no confidence," the 2000 presidential election certainly saw a vote of no confidence in the KMT. In last year's legislative election, voters said "no" to KMT Chairman Lien Chan (
Placing such spin on the matter does not make sense. The motivation behind it is quite obvious.
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
Translated by Francis Huang
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers