Several days ago Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislative candidate Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) said a vote for People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) was a vote for Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) campaign is clearly worried and regards Soong’s candidacy as dangerous.
Soong is marketing himself as being above the pan-blue/pan-green divide, but in reality his support comes mostly from pan-blue voters, something he is well aware of and working to exploit to the full. Whereas the KMT is abandoning its traditional base, Soong is digging deep into the foundations of pan-blue support. It is against this background that the fight within the pan-blue camp rages.
Soong registered as a presidential candidate on Thursday morning last week. In the afternoon, Ma went to the Touliao Mausoleum, where former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) is buried, to “report to Chiang.”
This was a transparent ploy to appeal to pan-blue supporters, to highlight that it is Ma who subscribes to KMT orthodoxy and not Soong. He then had an interview with the BBC, in which he played the unification card. It goes without saying that Soong is sidling up to the deep-blues.
If one is to believe the PFP, Soong appeals to moderate or light blue and green voters, and so he needs to tread carefully when discussing unification and independence. Why is it so difficult for Ma to convince people to give him a second crack of the whip? Incompetence is one, but the main reason is most people reject the idea of eventual unification.
Numerous opinion polls indicate that Ma’s support started to dip after Oct. 17, when he announced a possible peace accord with China. He promptly corrected himself, but the damage was already done. Soong, as cunning as ever, used this moment to show his pro-unification colors, gunning for the pan-blue vote.
That Soong is now in a strong position is not so much because of his own ability as Ma’s incompetence. After four years of Ma, the public has had enough. Soong now has the chance to draw his sword once more, but whether he is able to inflict a mortal wound on Ma depends on how much vitriol and personal attacks the pan-blue pro-unification media subject him to.
How many votes can Soong get? Nobody in their right mind would bet on the outcome, but the point is not how many of Ma’s votes he can steal: He might not damage Ma’s election prospects, but his only concern is to be able to compete against Ma. The Jan. 14 presidential election will offer a standard by which to measure his success in this. It is often said it is the journey, not the arriving, that matters, and so it is with Soong’s election bid.
Given that Soong’s votes will basically come from pan-blue supporters, it makes sense for him to attack Ma. Based on press reports, Soong is laying into Ma 80 percent of the time and Tsai only 20 percent, in tune with his election strategy. Comparing his own strong record as former Taiwan governor with Ma’s poor performance as president adds weight to Tsai’s own criticisms of Ma, and consolidates the general impression of Ma’s shortcomings. This is far more effective than taking Tsai on.
Soong’s entrance has also drawn the brunt of attacks from the pan-blue press away from Tsai and onto Soong, particularly in the case of the political call-in programs. The pan-blue camp seems to be making an art form out of infighting.
As things start to look bad for Ma, the pan-blue camp is trying to cast Soong as a “sinner,” but this is not entirely fair. The real “sinner” of the pan-blue camp is Ma, not Soong. He has only himself to blame.
Chin Heng-wei is a political commentator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers