With the completion of the candidates' registration for the year-end Taipei mayoral race, the election is now widely seen as a warm-up for the 2008 presidential poll. In addition to former presidential candidates -- People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) and independent Legislator Li Ao (李敖) -- former Kaohsiung mayor and premier Frank Hsieh (謝長廷), who has yet to deny his ambitions to run for the nation's highest office, has thrown his hat into the mayoral race. It is clear that the outcome of this election will have have an impact on the 2008 race.
The question is why Hsieh, after giving up the premiership, was willing to humble himself and run for the mayorship. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) are still struggling under the weight of the corruption allegations against Chen's family members and close aides. Hsieh himself is finding it hard to steer clear of the fallout from the irregularities surrounding the construction of the Kaohsiung mass rapid transit (MRT) system. Many DPP supporters therefore regard Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) as the party's savior.
To help Su secure a shot at the presidency in 2008, his followers are attempting to distance him from Chen to avoid being implicated in the scandal surrounding the president. By the same token, they also want to remove any potential competitors to avoid the prospect of an ugly DPP presidential primary that could further damage the party's image. They have already succeeded in forcing former DPP legislator Shen Fu-hsiung (沈富雄) to drop his mayoral ambitions and called on Hsieh to run for the post instead.
From the perspective of Su's supporters, Hsieh's chances of winning the mayoral race in Taipei -- traditionally a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) stronghold -- are, of course, slim. The controversy surrounding the construction of the Kaohsiung MRT is bound to haunt him during the campaign. Putting Hsieh under public scrutiny will weaken his ability to move toward the DPP's presidential nomination. And if Hsieh fails to garner enough votes in the Taipei race, he will not have enough momentum or support to compete with Su for the 2008 election.
After his resignation as premier, Hsieh started his unofficial campaign for the 2008 race by undertaking inspection tours around the country and befriending many people in the non-governmental sector in order to extend his influence beyond Kaohsiung. While Su's supporters may think that a "loser" is not entitled to another shot at office, they cannot deny the fact that Chen won the presidency after having lost the Taipei mayorship to Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九). Why wouldn't Hsieh be able to pull off the same trick?
As for Hsieh, it is by no means unreasonable for him to run for Taipei mayor. The media focus involved in a mayoral election in the nation's capital and the sympathy he has generated from the pan-green's small voter base in Tai-pei for "sacrificing himself for the sake of the party" could turn him into a hero for many DPP supporters. This would be a big step toward building up his momentum for the presidency even if he were to lose the mayoral election.
Su, on the other hand, has the vantage point of the premiership and has allied himself with DPP Chairman Yu Shyi-kun to suppress Hsieh. This could, however, make him the strongest opponent in the eyes of the pan-blue camp, which could prompt them to launch an early attack against the premier. And with the opposition holding a legislative majority, anything short of a good political record and a clean image could land Su in hot water.
Meanwhile, on the pan-blue front, Soong's registration for the Taipei race has been followed by rumors from within the PFP that he has hinted at the possibility of pulling out of the race. The main difference between Soong and Hsieh is that it doesn't seem very likely that Soong will run for the presidency again in 2008. Soong's main consideration in running for the mayorship is that his popularity has continued to fall since the 2000 presidential election, and he wants to use the election to leverage the remainder of his popularity to extend the PFP's existence.
While Soong may want to leverage his image as a hardworking and caring public official during his stint as Taiwan provincial governor -- that was already a long time ago. During the intervening years, his clashes with Chen and other political incidents have left the public with the impression of a scheming and calculating character.
For Taipei residents, Soong has nothing new to offer. His purpose in putting all his energies into the mayoral election is to help all those who have supported him along the way so that they will not be weighed down by the PFP label in the year-end city councilor elections.
This is also why Soong has taken an unexpected leave of absence from his post as PFP chairman to run as an indepen-dent, just as he did in the 2000 presidential election when he "left" the KMT. This strategy, however, ignores the fact that most of those who voted for him in 2000 were pan-blue supporters, who only pinned their hopes on Soong because the KMT's candidate, then vice president Lien Chan (連戰), was falling behind in the polls and they did not want Chen to win. Looking ahead to the year-end mayoral election, pan-blue supporters' longing for unity means that it will be difficult for Soong to garner the same support that he did before.
If winning the Taipei mayorship is not Soong's main objective in running, but rather protecting and supporting PFP city councilor candidates, his strategy should be to maintain his campaign's momentum and preserve the PFP's independence. And then, just a few days before election day, he should show his concern for pan-blue unity by voicing his support for the KMT's candidate, Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌), but at the same time calling on the people to save the PFP.
Such a tragic call might arouse the sympathy of pan-blue voters, who may appreciate the sacrifice that Soong and the PFP are making, and create an atmosphere where they would want to do right by the PFP. This would boost the position of the PFP's city councilor candidates at the last crucial moment. Maybe this would be the most rational choice Soong could make.
All in all, the year-end election is already considered an indicator of the 2008 race. Ma's ability to maintain his position as the pan-blue camp's crown prince and Su's and Hsieh's ability to cooperate will help decide who will be the last man standing in the 2008 presidential race.
Lin Tai-wei is a doctoral candidate in National Chengchi University's department of political science.
Translated by Daniel Cheng and Perry Svensson
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US