Independent Taipei mayoral hopeful Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) recent proposal for an “opposition alliance” to be formed ahead of the upcoming Taipei mayoral elections of course refers to a union between opposition parties — the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the New Party and the Green Party — which are, individually, all smaller than the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
However, the Taipei mayoral election is only a local election and Ko is not a member of the DPP.
Why, then, is it necessary to rally all the smaller parties for an election unrelated to party politics or issues of national identity? Apart from highlighting the clear focus on winning above all else, this also shows many of the problems implicit in Taiwan’s elections
In London in the late 1970s, as the economy was reeling from the effects of the 1979 oil crisis, the public, struggling to make ends meet, started to lose confidence in political parties.
The Labour Party, seeing an opportunity, proposed forming an alliance, too, only in this case it was not an alliance of small political parties, but of trade unions and labor groups: In other words, an alliance of civic society.
Their goal was to try and get people who felt apathetic toward mainstream party politics and elections engaged once again.
This alliance involved a change of policy orientation, with plans for the city different to those of the Conservative Party. The Conservatives had had grand ambitions for the creation of a financial district, embarking on the construction of Canary Wharf, somewhat similar to Taipei’s Xinyi district.
Investment and the number of companies interested in moving into the district, however, fell short of expectations after the construction was completed, and the London Docklands area, for a time, resembled a ghost town.
The Labour Party resolved to save the city from the flawed and failing urban planning policy and proposed more socially-oriented policies. For instance, due to the correlation of an economic recession and an increase in unemployment, domestic abuse was on the rise, and a Labour mayoral candidate proposed building large numbers of women’s shelters, refuges for the victims of domestic violence, an idea that was warmly received by women in the electorate.
The Labour candidate won and the Greater London Council passed a special budget which saw more than 200 refuges built, putting gender equality right at the center of city policy. Labour then promoted an alliance of grass-roots candidates from the actual communities in which they were standing for election, and this had a great effect on lifting London out of economic recession.
Compared with the lofty goals of establishing a civil alliance and turning London into a modern city, Ko’s call for an opposition alliance, which basically amounts to the leaders of political parties joining forces to improve their chances of winning, is much less ambitious.
Ko is a relative newcomer to politics, he has much more potential than established politicians for coming up with creative policy ideas for the city and doing something genuinely new to transcend pan-green or pan-blue partisanship, a problem he has often spoken about.
Taipei’s voters are among the most savvy in the country, with approximately 1 million swing voters unfettered by loyalties to any particular party. Any candidate with promising policies has a good chance of emerging the winner.
Sabina Sun is a social commentator and a doctorate candidate in the Department of Urban Planning at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Translated by Drew Cameron
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