Former premier Hau Pei-tsun (郝柏村) has been trying to turn the Taipei mayoral election into a standoff between those who favor Taiwan remaining the “Republic of China” and those who support Taiwanese independence, in a repeat of the 1994 mayoral race that developed into a battle over national identity — It is as if the clock has been turned back 20 years.
At the heart of the Taipei mayoral contest is the question of whether the candidates can propose effective ways of handling the urgent problems posed by the city’s wealth gap, skyrocketing housing prices, falling salaries, food safety controls, an aging society, declining birthrates, urban renewal and a bloated local administration, to create an environment where residents can live and work in peace.
To wilfully turn the focus of the election away from municipal issues toward the independence or unification issue — which has nothing to do with the responsibilities of the Taipei City Government — is tantamount to treating voters as fools, and is nothing but a tasteless trick.
Looking back at the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) mayoral primary in April, KMT Taipei mayoral candidate Sean Lien (連勝文) defeated KMT Legislator Ting Shou-chung (丁守中) after receiving more than 10,000 votes, eclipsing Ting’s less than 5,000 ballots. In the opinion poll section of the primary, Lien also defeated Ting, garnering the support of 39 percent of respondents, compared with Ting’s 36 percent support rating.
No one is probably more confused over this result than Ting, who was fiercely attacked by his party comrades despite having been preparing for the role of Taipei mayor for 20 years and even being named “legislator with the most outstanding record.”
Lo Cheng-chung is an assistant professor at the Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology Institute of Financial and Economic Law.
Translated by Perry Svensson
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS