Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei County commissioner-elect Chou Hsi-wei (周錫瑋) said last Saturday night that his victory "proves that ethnicity is not a problem in Taipei County" for his party. There's a lot of truth in this declaration: No other political party cuts across ethnic boundaries so comprehensively.
In the face of declining Hoklo support nationwide, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) thought it had a hope of bringing Hakka voters into the fold with its tricky campaign in Miaoli, but this gambit failed when the enigmatic Hakka-dominated county voted a Hoklo KMT candidate into the top job despite support for the DPP from the outgoing commissioner.
Once again, however, the most politically polarized ethnic group was the Aborigines. Were the Aboriginal population not so small, the following figures would be the DPP's worst nightmare made flesh. Of the 30 elections for mayor in Aboriginal townships, the DPP won none. And of the 57 city and county council seats reserved for Aboriginal candidates, the DPP also won none. This is a dreadful record for a party that preaches ethnic harmony, but it is not until one looks at the lists of candidates for each electorate that the penny drops. Not a single DPP candidate ran for mayor in Aboriginal townships this year, and a measly four of the party's candidates ran for councilors, all of whom failed, including the DPP's sole incumbent, Tien Chun-chih (田春枝), who lost her seat in Taipei County.
The DPP's lack of representation in Aboriginal districts is long-standing, but the utter lack of sustained engagement with this electorate after years of central political control symbolizes a party that has lost confidence in its message. President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) promise of increased autonomy for indigenous people ("states within a state") sounded impressive. But if sources in the executive are to be believed, Chen's men have been less than enthusiastic about executing such policy, and Aboriginal people on the ground are, after several years, none the wiser despite the formulation of an autonomy law.
Aboriginal electoral numbers are small but they carry a prize for the pan-blue camp, whose near monopoly of representation serves as a handy reminder of the difficulties the DPP faces in adapting to the requirements of local politics. It also offers a convincing display of KMT ethnic inclusiveness for those who warn of rampant Hoklo nationalism under the DPP.
Yet it is safe to say the KMT takes Aboriginal constituencies for granted, and it has never expressed enthusiasm at returning land stolen and defaced by corporations and settlers (the ghastly cuttings at the mouth of the Taroko Gorge are the most cinematic example of this encroachment). There are any number of ways the DPP could right the KMT's historical wrongs, and there has indeed been some progress. Election time, however, reveals the chasm between the ideal and the reality.
The "hundred-pacer" snake is a totemic animal in Aboriginal Taiwan. Its venom can be fatal for humans but it largely minds its own business. A number of Aboriginal ethnic groups consider it a sacred animal; indeed, the Paiwan people of Pingtung and Taitung counties claim descent from it and adorn themselves with its image. It is a beautiful reptile and demands respect and careful handling. Woe betide those who do not.
The fact that the DPP has no local representation in Aboriginal communities anymore suggests that it has all but given up on offering these people an alternative voice. Like a sickly and careless snake handler, such disrespect has led to a small injury from which the DPP can only suffer a spreading paralysis.
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