The split between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) over the Taipei mayoral election would seem to benefit the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate, Frank Hsieh (謝長廷).
History tells us there is a "dumping effect" with Taiwan's first-past-the-post electoral system if there is more than one competitor from the same camp.
However, history also shows that once there is a split within a camp, the third party is likely to become the sole beneficiary.
When he was the DPP mayoral candidate in 1994, Chen Shui-bian (
Ethnicity and the unification-independence debate used to determine elections for Taipei. Now, however, it comes down to the candidate's character, because Taipei residents are more politically informed and independent-minded.
It is too early to predict the impact PFP candidate James Soong (
In this regard, Hsieh should not take the pan-blue camp's split for granted.
Rather, he must apply his experience as Kaohsiung mayor and present a platform on how he would crack down on the re-emerging sex industry, address deteriorating traffic conditions, stir up the bureaucratic machine and make Taipei a better and safer place in which to live.
Hsieh's campaign strategy of accusing Hau's father Hau Pei-tsun (
Hsieh must demonstrate to the voters why he can do a better job than Hau and even Ma in terms of forging discipline, decisiveness and effectiveness in policy implementation.
Hau's strategy also lacks vision. With strong endorsement from Ma, Hau's campaign has been relatively defensive so far.
But his biggest problem lies in the extent to which he can distinguish himself from Ma.
This is especially important given that Ma has suffered from both a public backlash over the anti-Chen movement initiated by former DPP chairman Shih Ming-teh (施明德) and from Soong's consolidation of the deep-blue vote. To shake off this association, Hau needs to adjust his style and react to public criticism candidly and aggressively.
A campaign is like riding a bike. The more momentum you have, the harder it is to knock you over. But if you're just barely moving or standing still, even the slightest push will make you tumble.
Being aggressive helps to force the agenda onto terrain most favorable to you, and that's usually an advantage for opposition candidates. Whoever can frame the debate and control the setting of the agenda will win the campaign.
After establishing the goals of the campaign and adopting a more aggressive strategy, opposition candidates must set up an agenda to capture voter interest and respect.
They must determine what went wrong with the city government over the last seven years and then punch the message home with force and determination.
This is what Taipei voters want from the year-end contest.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS