In 2011, Park Won-soon successfully brought various opposition forces together and was elected mayor of Seoul with 53 percent of votes against his Conservative rival’s 46 percent, giving the Liberals control of the government in South Korea’s capital.
This year, Park, representing the main opposition party, the New Politics Alliance for Democracy, again beat the Saenuri Party’s candidate, business tycoon Chung Mong-joon, by 56 percent to 43 percent, giving him a second term.
Taipei will also have a mayoral election this year, as part of the seven-in-one elections scheduled for Nov. 29. The Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) decision to back independent contender Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) means that voters in Taipei, like their counterparts in Seoul, will have an opportunity to choose a candidate representing an opposition alliance, rather than a member of a political party, as mayor. Will people in Taipei follow Seoul’s example by breaking out of the party-political framework and opening the door to a new kind of politics?
Judging by the current social atmosphere in Taiwan and the apparent trends on the political scene for the next few months, Taipei is moving out of the orbit of political parties, because while people are dissatisfied with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), they do not have enough confidence in the DPP.
Although power has changed hands twice in the past four presidential elections, the problem of corruption and misgovernment by the party in power has proved hard to root out.
The KMT has won all of the four most recent mayoral and councilor elections in Taipei, but, having gained majorities and control of government at the national level and in the biggest metropolis, the party has performed poorly.
Construction has lagged, there has been a string of corruption cases, economic development has been sluggish, salaries have stagnated and the gap between the rich and the poor has grown into a gulf.
During all the elections that have been held over the past two decades, the KMT has drawn lines around voters in Taipei according to political symbols, ideology and party-political mobilization, but Taipei people have been the victims of political misjudgement.
The “bogus” 12-year national education program is yet another example of the damaging consequences of adults’ misplaced votes on the next generation, who do not yet vote.
Middle-high school students graduating this year, those who will go on being tyrannized by the “bogus” program next year, and their parents, are the most unfortunate and worried group of people in the nation today.
As for the DPP, it has not lived up to the mission of overseeing the government. It lacks political ambition, is not very good at forming policies and is weakly organized at the grassroots level.
This makes it hard for the party to break the electoral barriers set up by the KMT: The DPP has lost one election after another.
Voters have turned to a prospective mayor who is a member of none of the main parties, making him a realistic candidate in the year-end elections.
If Ko has sufficient ability and charisma to emulate Park’s success, he will consolidate non-KMT political forces with other social forces. Can he deliver transparent and direct governance, and give people the chance of a safe, creative, sustainable and lively urban life?
If Taipei residents safeguard their own interests and those of their children, the year-end elections may see a shift in their political attitudes and voting behavior. Can they make the same choice as the Koreans?
Chan Chang-chuan is vice dean of National Taiwan University’s College of Public Health.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath