The rush is on to analyze, interpret and spin the meaning of the Jan. 12 elections and the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) capture of a nearly three-fourths legislative majority. Pundits have discussed reasons for the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) loss: a repudiation of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), an incumbent effect, perceptions of poor economic performance, resurfacing of local factions and a low voter turnout to name a few.
A majority of these commentaries focus on the new electoral system and its effects on the outcome. If political fortunes are being bet on the meaning of the Jan. 12 elections for Taiwan's political future, one cannot deny that the new electoral system played a critical role in the KMT's major victory.
In a nutshell, the foundation of the KMT's victory was not policy, people or identity, but redistricting and single-member districts. Barring a marked increase in green support from 2004, the KMT and the larger pan-blue camp were structurally destined to win the election, and win it big. Based on voting patterns from four years ago, the KMT won in districts where it numerically should have won, as did the DPP in most cases.
A very literal application of the 2004 vote, adjusted for the new districting this year, indicated approximately 73 seats for the pan-blue camp. If political winds had remained unchanged, the DPP should have secured no more than 21 district seats.
The DPP's publicly stated goal of 35 or so seats was unrealistic from the start and the actual outcome may not have been a political indictment of the DPP as much as it was the straightforward result of structural and regulatory changes to the election system.
The new system favors the largest party and in most of the nation's electoral districts, the party with the most historical electoral support was the KMT.
The "surprise" losses for the DPP, of which there were approximately eight, were largely concentrated in the Kaohsiung area, and this is where the parties can learn most of the political lessons from this election.
A common perception is developing that the DPP failed to hold its base and was repudiated by voters. In reality, the national vote for the DPP was higher this year than in 2004, and when one looks at the district results nationwide, the DPP increased its vote from 2004 in most cases or suffered small declines.
Again, these are not signs of a massive shift in voter sentiment, but rather an effect of the single-member district competition which rewards winners generously and punishes losers disproportionately.
What appears to be a key reason for the DPP's general defeat was its unrealistic goal and/or failure to adopt electoral strategies crucial to winning under new majority wins rules. Either way, with only one-third of voters to count on this year, the DPP was set to lose at least a two-thirds majority to the KMT and its allies.
The majority of voters in legislative elections have traditionally favored the blue camp; it was thus not surprising that the KMT did so well in the single-member district contest.
Hans Stockton
Taipei
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS