In a surprising move, expressing regret for internal pressure from the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) top leaders, incumbent Taipei County Commissioner Chou Hsi-wei (周錫瑋) announced his withdrawal from the year-end mayoral election for Sinbei City (新北市) and endorsed the candidate favored by the KMT, incumbent Vice Premier Eric Chu (朱立倫).
Chou’s early withdrawal was clearly a result of political maneuvering by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who doubles as KMT chairman, and KMT Secretary-General King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) over the Lunar New Year, when rumors filled the local media that Chou would be replaced by Chu in exchange for a higher position in the Presidential Office or the Executive Yuan.
When Chou was notified that he was way behind Chu in the KMT’s poll for the candidacy of Sinbei City to face potential competitors from the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), particularly former premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌), he had no choice but to quit earlier than expected.
The whole drama staged by Ma is aimed primarily at preventing Su from winning Taipei County, given that the constituency comprises the largest number of voters in the country. Therefore, Ma and his Cabinet decided first to upgrade Taipei County to the municipal level last year and postpone the Taipei County commissioner election for another year, so Su would not have a chance to run.
Because of Chou’s continued poor governance and unpopularity, Ma initiated another step by placing Chu in the upgraded Sinbei City in the hopes of defeating Su and continuing the KMT’s governance.
Now the ball seems to be in Su’s court. According to most public polls, including ones conducted by the Chinese-language China Times and United Daily News, Su is leading Chu in Sinbei City by a small margin.
Nevertheless, there are also questions within the DPP on whether Su should run in Sinbei City or in Taipei City against KMT Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌).
Some argue that if Su ran for either of the positions and won, he would be trapped in Taipei and lose the opportunity to run for president in 2012. There is the possibility Chu will ask Su to pledge that he won’t run for the presidential election in 2012 if he chooses to run in the December election. Others contend that if Su did not run in December, he would be accused of being too selfish and only have his eyes on 2012.
How should Su untie this political knot? Su and the DPP need to come up with “a tale of two cities.” Given that Su and DPP Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) are the two leading candidates from the pan-green camp who have a chance of beating Chu and Hau, both should immediately leverage their popularity to strengthen internal unity after tomorrow’s legislative by-election.
The DPP has suffered from a huge lack of internal unity following the loss of the last presidential election. It took almost a year for the opposition to recover, with a series of local campaign victories. Tsai’s leadership is further consolidated and Su’s national popularity increased by the KMT’s political maneuvering in the Taipei County drama.
The elections in Taipei and Sinbei are not about unification or independence, nor do they involve ethnic division. They are more about whether the DPP candidates can offer better policies and outperform Hau and Chu.
Replacing Chou with Chu gives the DPP an opportunity to accuse the KMT commissioner of failing to perform adequately. Whether or not Su is running for his old hometown, he can refresh the voters’ memory of the DPP’s good governance by helping Tsai and others.
In Taipei City, Hau has been cleaning up his predecessor Ma’s mess on troubles such as the Maokong Gondola and the Wen-Hu MRT line. The DPP’s appeal for change in Taipei City can be a good starting point after the KMT’s nearly 12 years of governance.
The unique character of Taipei voters provides the DPP with an opportunity to sell its superior track record. Either Su or Tsai can give it a try.
It was the best of times for the DPP to win not only three out of five cities in the year-end special municipality elections but also possibly the presidential election in 2012.
It could also be the worst of times. The key lies in whether party leaders can put aside personal rivalry and selfishness and engage in candid and constructive dialogue on how to come up with the best candidates.
Liu Shih-chung is a senior research fellow at the Taipei-based Taiwan Brain Trust.
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
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
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS