Many commentators believe they have already figured out who is going to win Taiwan's next presidential election.
Virtually every article that mentions the 2008 poll slips in something about the supposed inevitability that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
But this simple-minded assuredness that Ma's smile will win the day exposes a blissful naivete of the nature of Taiwanese politics and ignorance about what poll results from every election in the past six years have indicated.
Ma may have succeeded in trouncing his KMT rival in the chairmanship election last year and may have performed well in the Taipei mayoral elections. But none of this is indicative of how he will perform nationally.
A close examination of election results at every level since the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came to power shows that, on a national level, support for the major parties is almost evenly split. The most recent election reinforced this data.
If -- as has happened in almost every race over the past few years -- people remain faithful to their party of choice regardless of whom that party's candidate is, then a Ma victory is far from assured.
The Ma phenomenon is a classic example of how analysts, commentators and journalists gravitate toward the simplest possible scenario and ignore the subtleties involved in more sophisticated analysis.
In that scenario, Ma is young and charismatic, has a "proven" record as a leader and holds impressive professional qualifications. He also has enviable name recognition, both locally and internationally. Ergo, to those who are unwilling -- or unable -- to delve beneath the surface, Ma is a sure bet for president in 2008.
But this scenario paints a very misleading picture of local politics. Ma is far from universally revered, even within the KMT. Many of the KMT elders -- and a surprising number of its younger members -- view Ma as a weak and indecisive leader. For example, he has come under fire from within his own ranks for not taking a more vigorous role in the campaign to oust the president.
What this signals to others within the KMT -- Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (
Very few KMT diehards will vote for anyone other than their party's chosen candidate, regardless of who that candidate is. But with such narrow margins in voter support between the pan-blue and pan-green parties, the key to the 2008 election may well hinge on a relatively small swing vote.
What this means in practical terms is that the race is still a toss-up, and anyone who tries to sell you a story otherwise is full of hot air.
There is no question that the DPP has a tough fight ahead of it in 2008. The poll is more than a year away, and in politics a year is a long time. The scandals that are currently plaguing the party will likely continue for many months to come, and that is something any DPP candidate will have to contend with.
What one hopes is that the narrow margins necessary for an electoral victory in 2008 will drive all of the nation's political parties to embrace a more centrist, less divisive type of politicking.
If that happens, the country will win in the long-term, no matter what the immediate result is.
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