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?
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS