In state elections in the US on Nov. 3, the Democratic Party lost out. These were the first elections since US President Barack Obama took office, but many saw them as a local affair, not as a mid-term test for Obama. Rather than blaming Obama, the Democratic Party swallowed the bitter pill. On Saturday it was Taiwan’s turn to hold local elections. Although the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) won the top posts in 12 out of 17 cities and counties, losing only Yilan and Hualien counties among those seats it had held, public opinion sees the results as a defeat for the KMT and blames President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), the KMT chairman, for the losses.
Why such a difference between the US and Taiwan? Obama was not responsible for campaigning for local candidates. Ma, on the other hand, made every effort to do so, rushing about the country. He campaigned 11 times in Yilan County alone, where he stood on the stage with the KMT candidate in two different places on the eve of the vote. For all his efforts, however, the KMT still lost Yilan. It is no surprise, therefore, that people should hold Ma responsible for the loss.
The KMT lost control of two counties, but only one went to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). More significantly, the KMT’s share of the vote fell steeply, from about 60 percent in last year’s presidential election to 47.88 percent, while the DPP’s share grew from 41.55 percent to 45.32. While Ma’s aura is fading, the DPP is beginning to recover from the corruption charges against former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁).
Ma told reporters he thought it was the “general environment” that resulted in a lower-than-expected voter turnout and seats won for the KMT. He did not shoulder any of the responsibility for the results. Nor did he promise a reshuffle in the party, saying only that “everything” would be discussed in the post-election analysis. While Ma apparently feels he can’t be blamed because the party’s candidates were finalized by his predecessor as party chairman, Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄), in practice Ma has been in charge of all party affairs since July. It should be difficult for him to dodge responsibility in connection to both the nominations and campaigning.
In addition, the government’s ineptitude can hardly be blamed on Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), who has been in office for just over two months. In particular, given the popularity of Ma’s 6-3-3 campaign promise last year and the stark contrast between it and the current situation, voters did not care that Saturday’s polls were not a presidential election — they used the chance to show their dissatisfaction.
Ma was perfectly right in saying voters had been magnanimous — how else could one explain their rewarding government inability and dictatorial policymaking by handing the KMT 12 county commissioner and mayoral seats? Yet Saturday’s results were a warning.
If the government doesn’t pay heed to the public’s concerns about US beef, the economic cooperation and framework agreement with China, recognition of Chinese academic credentials, poor government performance and anger over vote-buying, then Ma and the KMT will pay a heavy price in next year’s special municipality and legislative elections.
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