In Saturday’s legislative by-elections, generally seen as a warm-up for the year-end direct municipality elections, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) took three of the four legislative seats, therefore winning four local elections in a row.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was defeated in both pro-KMT Taoyuan and Hsinchu counties, and only managed a narrow win in pro-KMT Hualien County. This showed that KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and KMT Secretary-General King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) were unable to address and suppress internal struggles between the party’s local factions.
Despite holding 75 legislative seats, the KMT suffers from poor local mobilization and administrative performance. It is unable to take advantage of its status as the ruling party and it does not understand what the public wants.
The defeats further damaged the party’s rule, making the direct municipality elections more unpredictable.
The successful integration of local factions has always been fundamental to the KMT’s victories and the factions have also been a cornerstone of the party’s rule.
To promote local reform, Ma and King carefully picked candidates and formed campaign teams that launched swift and fierce attacks. However, voter turnout in by-elections normally stands at about 40 percent. Since such elections are only held in very few districts around the nation, it is difficult to set an agenda that attracts the public. Obviously, the KMT’s electoral strategy crumbled under electoral pressure.
Members of the KMT’s local factions have long filled important positions and those social resources have been used to promote social mobilization. Given this longstanding systemic advantage, it should be easy for the KMT to manipulate elections, but once national and local party leaders disagree on nomination issues, local governance often collapses and conflict appears.
Taoyuan, Hsinchu and Hualien counties are pro-blue, but Ma and King were still unable to handle the superficial integration of local factions. Nor were they able to awake voter support and passion.
If the system is the foundation of the KMT’s rule, it only highlights the success of the party’s propaganda, but it fails to explain the party’s underachievement since regaining power.
Recently, Ma was ranked 37th in a Reader’s Digest survey on the credibility of Taiwanese public figures. The low ranking echoed his unsatisfactory support ratings, showing that while he may be trusted by the deep pan-blues, he is not trusted by the general public. The problem is not election technique or local factions — it is Ma’s poor performance that has killed the passion voters showed during the 2008 presidential campaign, as their expectation turned into disappointment and even desperation.
The most obvious impression the public has is of an uncompetitive bureaucratic system that ignores their complaints. The government’s policy implementation has been too lax, as it has been unable to resolve domestic social pressure created by the economic downturn. Internationally, Taiwan’s global competitiveness is stumbling, as the trade-oriented nation fails to handle industrial transformation.
In the face of domestic and international pressures, Taiwan is worse off than South Korea, which has left the financial crisis behind and is moving forward. Moreover, as Taiwan leans toward China, will the imbalanced development result in the polarization of rich and poor?
As the direct municipality elections approach, searching for the best way to rule the nation is key to winning back public trust.
Liu Dsih-chi is an associate professor at Asia University’s Department of International Business.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with