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
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath