The situations of the Taipei and Kaohsiung City Councils' elections for speakers and deputy speakers repeatedly changed by the day. Eventually, the KMT's Wu Bi-chu (吳碧珠) kept the speaker's post in Taipei with the PFP's Lee Hsin (李新) taking the deputy post. In Kaohsiung, both the speaker's and deputy speaker's posts were taken by independent councilors -- as speaker Chu An-hsiung (朱安雄) and his deputy Tsai Song-hsiung (蔡松雄) were elected thanks to KMT-PFP cooperation. Isn't it bizarre how independent councilors were able to manipulate the council even though they only account for one-fifth of the seats?
The apparent use of "black gold" in the speakership and deputy speakership elections in Kaohsiung is disgusting. The pan-blue camp can hardly pass the buck this time. The influence and impact of the bribery scandal are huge. Chu initially was backed by the DPP, but he was able to win the election due to the support of the KMT and the PFP. The DPP made a last-minute decision not to cooperate with Chu because of the speaker's notorious reputation. The KMT and the PFP's alleged criminal action this time has highlighted how "black gold" is second nature to the two parties. This will definitely affect people's impression of them as the 2004 presidential election approaches.
However, what's more serious is perhaps that the so-called KMT-PFP cooperation completely failed the test. Not only did they fail to cooperate in the elections in Kaohsiung, but they also failed to cooperate in the elections in Taipei.
In terms of the unity of the pan-blue camp, perhaps we can take the New Party as an example. The party almost collapsed after the legislative election last December. Although it successfully attracted 9.02 percent of the votes in the Taipei City Councilor election, the chance for it to be completely defeated in the next legislative election still exists. Besides, its return to the KMT is likely to take place, as New Party Convener Yuk Mu-ming (郁慕明) publicly expressed that his party wants to be the screw that holds KMT-PFP cooperation together. In the New Party's words: "Everything can be sacrificed for the sake of right and wrong on issues of significance."
Ironically, in the deputy speakership election for the Taipei City Council, the New Party councilors would rather die than support the PFP's Lee -- who switched to the PFP from the New Party not long ago, making him a defector in their eyes. They also complained to and protested against Yuk for not supporting the New Party's incumbent deputy speaker Fei Hung-tai (
Although the elections in Taipei and Kaohsiung are merely regional, the New Party immediately upheld the banner of "party autonomy." The party would rather destroy the unity of the pan-blue camp than sacrifice itself. How will it be willing to make a concession in the upcoming 2004 presidential election?
In light of the Taipei and Kaohsiung elections, on the one hand, both the KMT and the PFP experienced internal conflicts as their councilors fought for nominations. On the other hand, neither the KMT, the PFP nor the New Party was willing to make a concession. As the old saying goes, "A straw shows which way the wind blows." Can the pan-blue parties really unite under one 2004 presidential candidate?
Chin Heng-wei is editor in chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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