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
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS