Just as early polls predicted, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Hau Lung-bin (
However, in Kaohsiung, KMT candidate Huang Chun-ying (
To begin with, this election is most significant for entrenching Taiwan's two-party political landscape. People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (
With Soong out of the game, the PFP now finds itself hurried along toward its ultimate demise as the two-party system is strengthened.
Meanwhile, Hau has gone from strength to strength since leaving the New Party to return to the KMT, allowing him to demolish Hsieh and Soong, two politicians with strong administrative experience. The contrast in the results between the two pan-blue candidates discredits the idea that the candidates and their political stances were important in this election. The smaller parties may have had their day completely within the pan-blue and pan-green camps.
And why should it be any different in Kaohsiung, one of the DPP's traditional strongholds? The Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) initially wanted to take advantage of the DPP corruption scandals to emerge from its role as second fiddle to the DPP and distinguish between the "real and fake localization parties."
However, its performance in this election proves that it awaits the same fate as the other smaller parties. With former president Lee Teng-hui's (
In addition, the numbers illustrate that the KMT and DPP have maintained their respective support bases in the north and south. Right now, President Chen Shui-bian (
If this voting pattern becomes implanted and moderate voters migrate toward the extremes of the political spectrum, then I predict that KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
It's also important to compare the different strengths of the two parties in waging their campaigns. In the up-and-down Kaohsiung race, Huang, who polls had originally shown to be the leader, once more missed an opportunity to seize the coveted mayorship. The KMT took a conservative approach, choosing to lay back and avoid a fight rather than face its opponent head on. This low-key strategy eventually eroded the party's initial advantage.
Just like the controversy over the assassination attempt on President Chen during the 2004 election, the effect of the alleged vote buying in this year's election in Kaohsiung was not as significant as it first seemed. The upset at the end of the 2004 election made everyone wonder whether the KMT had used its six years in opposition to prepare and transform itself into a party capable of winning votes -- so too with the mayoral election.
Ma called the results of the poll a "draw," but the KMT should have won in Kaohsiung. Not only will this lack of drive force Taiwan to continue to bear an allegedly corrupt ruling party, but it must now face the bleak prospect of an ineffective opposition party as well. How can the nation endure such a situation?
With the votes counted, the candidates' battle has drawn to a close. But for the Taiwanese, who bear the heavy responsibility of upholding Taiwan's democracy, the battle has only just begun. If we can make the rational decision to accept the election results, if we let the victors enjoy the sweet fruits of Taiwan's democracy and the losers make the courageous decision to try again another day, then Taiwan's democracy will emerge from the storm and move toward calmer waters.
Fong Ruey-jay is a doctoral student in political science at the University of North Texas.
Translated by Marc Langer
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