In the six months leading up to the Taipei and Kaohsiung municipal elections, pro-China politicians and media outlets relentlessly attacked the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), prompting its approval rating to plunge to an all-time low. Despite that, the DPP still managed to make some progress, even in Taipei.
This is evidence that voters have been hardened by the political turmoil over the past six months. After defeating the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in the 2000 presidential election, the DPP has abandoned its old campaign style. The party's Taipei mayoral candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) made great contributions to future campaign strategies through the integration of different factions and handling of several opponents.
The most important part of Hsieh's concession speech was his pledge to continue to support Taiwan's core values and work for Taiwan and its people in different areas. Voters were able to see through the smoke-screen laid by the anti-corruption campaign and make the right choice because they insist on core Taiwanese values. They understand these values better than the "pro-green" academics and "reformists" calling for President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) resignation.
Throughout the electoral campaign, one of the pro-China parties' gimmicks was to bury core Taiwanese values under its anti-corruption campaign and mislead the public. However, it failed to present a vision for its policies in Taipei and Kaohsiung and avoided discussing values altogether.
If the nation loses its core values and identifies with the "one China" concept, it would fall into the corrupt hands of the Chinese government. Without core Taiwanese values, the city government's political accomplishments would be seen as China's accomplishment, regardless of how good these policies were.
Taiwan certainly needs to fight corruption but must do so safeguarding its sovereignty and core values. Such a drive must not only be targeted at individuals, but also at systemic corruption and special privileges. Unfortunately, few people have a clear picture of the Chinese forces behind the pro-China parties.
A Beijing-based academic analysing the election results said that although the KMT lost the Kaohsiung mayoral race, the total number of votes it won there had increased, indicating that centrist voters in southern Taiwan are beginning to identify with the pan-blue camp and favor unification.
However, quite a few academics predicting that the pan-blue camp would do well were obviously disappointed. The illusory hopes of these hired academics show that Beijing saw the elections as a battle between independence and unification forces.
A recent survey conducted by the Election Study Center at National Chengchi University, the University of the Ryukyus and the University of Hong Kong showed that if Beijing "allowed" the Tai-wanese to decide Taiwan's future, 62 percent of respondents would seek formal independence.
A further 54 percent said that even if Beijing did not "allow" Taiwan to pursue independence, that independence should still be the goal. The survey also found that the percentage of respondents who consider themselves Taiwanese had increased from 56 percent to 60 percent.
This shows that Taiwanese are no longer as strongly influenced by China when debating the issue as they were before. That is why political parties representing core Taiwanese values will remain popular among voters.
If, however, core Taiwanese values are to conquer the country as a whole, the pan-green camp must first maintain its own core values. If parties and factions remain hell-bent on protecting their own interests, agendas and short-term thinking, they will one day be abandoned by their supporters.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in Taipei.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
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