Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) was about to celebrate one year in office when he received an unwelcome “gift:” CommonWealth magazine’s poll on public satisfaction with the mayors and county commissioners of 25 cities and counties gave the six top spots to Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) members. Even the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) model leader, Taichung Mayor Jason Hu (胡志強), fell 13 spots to 18th.
Although the survey ranks the political performance of local leaders, national administrative efficiency is the basis for the ranking.
Pan-blue commentators said the party “would reflect on and review” the situation, while KMT spokesman Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) said the problem was that the government hadn’t done enough to promote its achievements. Taipei City Government spokeswoman Chao Hsin-ping (趙心屏) couldn’t understand how Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) was ranked 21st and the city placed fifth from the bottom, when it had obtained the top rankings in the areas of economy, policy implementation, education and social welfare. The KMT’s attitude highlights its problem.
Miaoli County Commissioner Liu Cheng-hung (劉政鴻), once called a “five-star county commissioner,” fell from third place last year to No. 15 this year. This was undoubtedly the result of his handling of the seizure of Dapu bourough (大埔) farmland. Nor is there much doubt that Hu’s fall from grace was the result of the assassination of alleged gangster Weng Chi-nan (翁奇楠), which has caused city residents to worry about deteriorating social order. Hau is caught up in a scandal over the Taipei International Flora Expo, where “simple administrative mistakes” have developed into a perfect storm of “collective corruption.”
Elected KMT officials have serious problems with governing, handling crises and their attitudes toward the public. To say they do poorly in opinion polls because they don’t promote their achievements very well is a clear bid to divert attention. It’s no wonder their popularity has been dropping.
The main difference between pan-blue and pan-green politicians lies in their attitude toward the public and this is reflected in their support levels. The most important thing for pan-green leaders seems to be what the electorate — not civil servants — think.
When he was Yilan County commissioner, Chen Ding-nan (陳定南) kept an eye on construction projects and made sure everything was above board. When former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was Taipei mayor, he would visit city offices to make sure that nobody was shying off work. Chen’s visits made civil servants unhappy and they complained about a lack of respect, but Chen was popular with the public.
Most pan-blue politicians, on the other hand, come from the ranks of the bureaucracy and view civil servants and other officials as “family.” They see themselves more as public administrators than public servants. That is why, when prosecutors searched Taipei City Government offices over the flower scandal and started detaining officials, Hau went to the city’s New Construction Office to apologize for getting civil servants embroiled in his re-election campaign, rather than apologizing to the public first. Liu’s indifference to the plight of the Dapu farmers tarnished the reputation he had taken years to build.
KMT politicians complain the public doesn’t appreciate their achievements, but that’s because there is a gap between what they say and do and what the public wants. Thus, Wu and others can talk about governing for the grassroots, but as soon as a policy causes a rift between businesses and farmers, or confrontation between development and environmental interests, the KMT sides with big business and China.
Eight years out of power and just two years back in, the KMT government is back to its old ways. Why shouldn’t the public show its disdain?
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
RSS