As Taiwan enters the countdown to local government elections on Dec. 5, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has launched a series of TV commercials, but its chairman, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), is conspicuous by his absence. The KMT said this was a deliberate decision to keep the focus on local issues. But Ma has said that any candidate who needs his support can count on his help. This contradiction reveals the KMT’s ambivalence toward Ma’s role in the year-end polls.
These elections are not crucial for the balance of power. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) may at best take control of one or two more cities or counties. But even one more could boost the DPP’s morale and help it make a comeback in 2012.
The pendulum effect is coming into play. The KMT, dominant in the legislature, won a landslide victory in last year’s president election. But voters are now fed up with the party’s indolence, arrogance and conceit, and are likely to express their discontent next month.
Recent polls show that, while the KMT still enjoys higher approval ratings than the DPP, Ma is less popular than DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). Many KMT candidates have distanced themselves from the president as they see his aura dimming. It is reminiscent of how former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), toward the end of his second term in office, became a political liability to the DPP, and its legislative candidates hoped that he would stay away from their campaigns. Now it is KMT candidates’ turn to worry that Ma could erode their standing with voters.
The Ma administration has not made up for its poor performance over Typhoon Morakot in August. If possible, it has gone from inept to mind-boggling incompetence. The uproar over its US beef import policy and the resulting waffling on the part of the Cabinet are one example.
The party has hit several stumbling blocks. Four KMT legislators have had their elections annulled by the courts because of vote buying, and were all replaced by non-KMT legislators in by-elections. Reports of vote buying in the KMT Central Standing Committee election prompted Ma, in his role as party chairman, to order a rerun. Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) admitted taking a trip to Indonesia with a paroled former gangster while he was still KMT secretary-general. He then offered piecemeal explanations. His lack of candor only added to suspicion that he had something to hide.
More recently, the media has had a field day over KMT Legislator Wu Yu-sheng’s (吳育昇) extra-marital affair. Wu is one of Ma’s leading factional supporters, and this scandal, erupting not long after Ma stressed the importance of morality and integrity, was a slap in the president’s face.
Meanwhile, the government’s handling of the signing of a financial memorandum of understanding between China and Taiwan made Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) and lawmakers from both the pan-blue and pan-green camps see red over the administration’s failure to brief the legislature.
With the DPP calling on the public to teach the Ma government a lesson, the KMT has failed to come up with fresh policies to woo voters. Instead, its candidates appear eager to distance themselves from the central government and Ma altogether.
The KMT needs to work out a competitive election strategy. If Ma wants to help his party’s candidates, then he needs to show some substance. If, however, he thinks his involvement will prove a liability, then he should stay in Taipei and focus on his presidential duties.
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