According to poll results released by the Taiwan Brain Trust last week, Taoyuan Mayor Cheng Wen-tsan (鄭文燦) has an approval rating of 75.9 percent, the highest among all six special municipality mayors.
The other mayors, in order of their approval ratings, are: Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu (陳菊) at 66.2 percent, Taichung Mayor Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) at 56.1 percent, Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) at 51 percent, New Taipei City Mayor Eric Chu (朱立倫) at 49.9 percent and acting Tainan Mayor Li Men-yen (李孟諺) at 25.8 percent.
The poll also shows that 45.5 percent of residents in the six special municipalities disapprove of the way President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) is running the nation, while 28.8 percent said they are happy with her performance.
Premier William Lai (賴清德) received an approval rating of 40.3 percent and a disapproval rating of 33 percent.
Despite possible bias from the think tank and the survey’s limited scope, the poll reveals a trend that might become the new norm in Taiwan. It deserves attention, as it might bring significant changes to the way the nation’s democracy works.
As Taiwan’s democracy continues to grow stronger, it is clear that nothing can undo the nation’s democratic progress. However, democracy might also bring unexpected changes to people’s lives. This is true not only within the six special municipalities.
Every policy decision made by heads of local governments directly affects their residents’ daily lives. That is why local governments typically prioritize policies that meet the needs of their residents, and why residents’ feelings toward their mayor or county commissioner directly reflect the effect of those policies.
If a policy brings tangible benefits to a local community or individuals — such as an increase in an area’s housing prices — the image of the mayor or county commissioner improves almost immediately.
That means residents often do not question whether the way resources have been allocated to certain projects is reasonable, or whether a local policy contributes to the sustainability of the city — or of the nation.
If a mayor or county commissioner can make everyone at the local council happy, allowing them to carry out policies that residents love, they can almost certainly expect a high approval rating. This is the irony of democracy.
A good example is a local government head who enjoyed an exceptionally high approval rating during their term, but was later found to have accrued huge debt for the local treasury.
Indeed, mayors and county commissioners are much luckier than presidents, premiers, ministers and other central government leaders, because the central government’s policy decisions always involve balancing competing aspects, as the scope of their responsibilities concern the entire nation.
In particular, the central government must take into account the effect of every policy on society, as well as external factors such as national defense, foreign policy, the national economy and international trade. Since the central government cannot limit their consideration to a single aspect, their policies often receive mixed reactions from the public.
If Taiwan’s central government leaders cared only about pleasing the electorate and were willing to cater to populism, perhaps they would have higher approval ratings. Nevertheless, they would also end up wasting national resources and making unsustainable plans — all of which would be detrimental to Taiwan’s future.
If a central government leader takes the approach of a local governor, things might look good in the short term, but would definitely go downhill in the long term.
Low approval ratings for the president, premier and ministers are not uncommon, and definitely not something that happens only to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). That is because it is very difficult to have a nationwide policy that makes everyone happy, and people who are unhappy with a policy tend to be more vocal.
A new political culture that has formed in recent years complicates things further. Minorities and individual movements advocating socially divisive issues, regardless of whether the issues they promote are of benefit for the nation as a whole, are becoming more popular. They are able to garner attention in the media and online, stirring up public debate and influencing people who have nothing to do with the issue.
The result is that the Tsai administration and the DPP are pretty much damned if they do, damned if they do not on every issue they touch.
Tsai and Lai’s recent slip in the polls is most likely due to the constant revisions made to the Labor Standards Act (勞動基準法) and the provisions therein for the “one fixed day off and one flexible rest day” system.
Tsai stated that in the previous round of revisions the government had focused on reinforcing guarantees for workers, while now, under the condition of maintaining four assurances, it is concentrating instead on providing a certain amount of flexibility for employers and employees.
This demonstrates a fundamental dilemma: in order to ensure the unhindered improvement of the national economy, the government must ensure that the two cogs — employees and employers — operate together in perfect harmony.
The trouble is that by constantly revising the law, the government risks people who have nothing to do with the issue expressing their doubts, and the situation being further distorted by opposition parties and special-interest media outlets.
The resulting social tensions make it very difficult for the governing party to maintain control.
Despite this, we still expect those in power to work toward the benefit of the nation as a whole, to the greatest benefit of the many, and not to be swayed by individual movements or minority populism.
Bowing down to the vocal minority will harm the silent majority, and in the end this will be detrimental to the central government’s support base. A ruler should not be distracted by the cacophony of diverse voices yelling for attention.
Major policy needs to be carefully thought out before it is rolled out; appealing to the majority interest means that the policy will resonate with the many.
It is this kind of resolve that will transcend differing opinions, and leave those in power with a legacy they can be proud of. It would also be of the greatest benefit to the nation as a whole.
Translated by Tu Yu-an and Paul Cooper
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
In a Taipei Times editorial published almost three years ago (“Macron goes off-piste,” April 13, 2023, page 8), French President Emmanuel Macron was criticized for comments he made immediately after meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing. Macron had spoken of the need for his country to find a path on Chinese foreign policy no longer aligned with that of the US, saying that continuing to follow the US agenda would sacrifice the EU’s strategic autonomy. At the time, Macron was criticized for gifting Xi a PR coup, and the editorial said that he had been “persuaded to run
The wrap-up press event on Feb. 1 for the new local period suspense film Murder of the Century (世紀血案), adapted from the true story of the Lin family murders (林家血案) in 1980, has sparked waves of condemnation in the past week, as well as a boycott. The film is based on the shocking, unsolved murders that occurred at then-imprisoned provincial councilor and democracy advocate Lin I-hsiung’s (林義雄) residence on Feb. 28, 1980, while Lin was detained for his participation in the Formosa Incident, in which police and protesters clashed during a pro-democracy rally in Kaohsiung organized by Formosa Magazine on Dec.
RSS