The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was routed in the nine-in-one elections. It managed to win only one of the six special municipalities [including the soon-to-be-upgrade Taoyuan County], and garnered only 41 percent of the total number of votes for mayors of the municipalities — compared with 48 percent for the Democratic Progressive Party.
In light of the significant defeat, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) approved the resignations of Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) and KMT secretary-general Tseng Tung-chuan (曾永權), but stopped short of taking responsibility himself, despite his prior insistence that he would not avoid accepting responsibility for election results.
It is classic Ma to deny that the fault lies with him. For him, it has always been because due to the actions of others.
Former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) and former KMT chairman Wu Po-hsiung (吳伯雄) were left battered by the results — their sons lost their respective campaigns — and New Taipei City Mayor Eric Chu (朱立倫), who many regard as a strong candidate for the 2016 presidential election, barely scraped through the night. He was the single saving grace of the day for the party.
Unless there are any influential senior members of the KMT willing to come out and criticize Ma, or if grassroots members get together and demand that he step down, he is likely to hold on to his positions as KMT chairman.
Ma has said that he has heard the message that the voters were trying to tell him in this election. Well, he said virtually the same thing during the Sunflower movement. Clearly, what he has heard is not what the public is saying, and not what the Sunflower movement was trying to convey to him.
His actual response has been to ignore the message he has been sent, while insisting on continuing with policy decisions that the public opposes.
The democratic system is keeping Ma in his position as president, even though the public has long since rejected him. His remaining in the top position and dominating national politics can only spell disaster for the nation.
The KMT political elite care only for their power and interests. They might be incensed with Ma, but they are not going to openly voice their anger.
Indeed, although Ma does carry a huge amount of the blame for the trouncing his party received nationwide, the central party leadership, as well as leadership at the local level, have to shoulder a hefty part of the responsibility for the electoral drubbing too.
The mudslinging tactics with which the KMT leadership and its main candidates attacked their opponents were examples of the ugliest side of campaigning, and totally failed to win over the electorate.
In Taipei, the party threw everything it could at its rival, even resorting to groundless accusations of the unethical procurement of human organs to dispatch their enemy.
In Greater Kaohsiung the party set its attack dog, Minister Without Portfolio “Little Big Man” Yang Chiu-hsing (楊秋興), after the incumbent. None of this struck the electorate as good examples of how democratic elections should be conducted.
The KMT’s defeat is a positive thing, as it challenges the idea that the party can rely on certain sections of the electorate for its support. This gives democracy in Taiwan a chance to start anew.
Chiu Hei-yuan is a research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institute of Sociology.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS