Shih Ming-teh (施明德), the figurehead of the “red shirts” protests in 2006 to force then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) to step down, has organized an online campaign that he calls “My heart is still alive” (我心未死) and aims to collect 100,000 signatures. Shih says the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) are in a state of stagnation and decay, that politicians are self-serving, and wonders why the public should only have a choice between bad and worse as they grudgingly vote. He has named former United Microelectronics Corp chairman Robert Tsao (曹興誠), former DPP chairman Lin I-hsiung (林義雄), and media personality Sisy Chen (陳文茜) as the best choices for president, and hopes that they will be persuaded to run for the position if the campaign can collect 100,000 signatures. Shih’s move seems to have caused some anxiety in the KMT, because they think the campaign will affect the party’s voter support.
Several Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) officials had the same idea during the last legislative elections. Opinion polls at the time showed that 30 percent of the electorate were displeased with both the KMT and the DPP, and the TSU thought it could attract these swing voters by choosing the middle way, still winning 15 percent of the vote if it attracted only half of them. In the end, however, most of these votes still went to the KMT and the DPP.
Voters in advanced democracies look at particular candidates, their political views and the image of their party. If both the two biggest parties are “bad apples,” a third force is easily formed. It is just that Taiwan is different in that Taiwanese don’t necessarily vote for a candidate based on these conditions. Maybe Shih has never noticed that many people support the KMT’s candidates not because they identify with the party, but out of a social obligation.
During his presidency, Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) was able to control local factions and was thereby able to secure local support for the KMT with the help of their vote captains. At the time, the KMT had a commanding grip over the political scene, and opposition politicians had to create political awareness to break the vote captains’ hold on the local level. Mobilizing people without the backing of a party was no mean feat, however, so for a long time politics remained a one horse race. It was difficult for a second political force to develop, and even more so for a third force.
The democratization of politics in Taiwan saw the rise of infighting within the KMT’s local factions, and the weave of their grassroots support gradually unraveled. The DPP was able to attract sections of the electorate that identify with the party’s ideological stance and also managed to nurture its own vote captains to draw votes away from the former lords of the manor. Gradually, it has grown in power. That’s not to say all voters who drift away from the KMT head in the direction of the DPP. In many cases they become swing voters between the two parties. As mentioned above, this by no means indicate that they will go running into the open arms of a third, newly emerging force.
The KMT and the DPP may be bad apples, as Shih asserts, but for blue or green diehards, they are both “our” bad apples. These voters will remain loyal regardless. Moreover, grassroots supporters of either party don’t necessarily agree with Shih’s assessment. As far as they are concerned, there is nothing wrong with their apple. Shih may have led the red shirts, but their only common ground was a wish to force Chen to step down. He did not identify with their political ideals.
Almost 50 percent of the electorate in Taiwan are under the sway of vote captains and political ideology. Sure, the rest is theoretically there for the taking for a third force, but only if it can come up with something new to offer them. One could name a few things: environmental concerns and ecological conservation, cultural issues, education — but what uniquely qualifies the three people Shih has put forward to champion those things?
What is it about Shih’s choices that suggests they will be able to break the culture of stagnation and decay he accuses the two main parties of having? What guarantees does he offer that his recommendations are no less “self-serving”? As they are trying to attract the voters that have turned their backs on vote captains and ideology, they will face the same problems the TSU did when it tried to attract the voters that had rejected both the KMT and the DPP.
The vast majority of voters believe that there is only one “bad apple” and are willing to accept the other party. Some are actually willing to accept either. As for Shih’s suggested candidates, most people don’t really know that much about them. Sometimes it’s a case of “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.”
In the past, Shih was seen as a hero, but he no longer has anything like the kind of following he used to have. Yes, he still has his eyes set on grand things, but that does not mean he will be able to achieve them. The crucial thing is that he doesn’t have the ability to regain that following and is unlikely to ascend to the heights he achieved in 2006.
Chen Mao-hsiung is a former professor at National Sun Yat-sen University.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON AND PAUL COOPER
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