The three main candidates in the Taipei mayoral election next month are Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Pasuya Yao (姚文智), Ting Shou-chung (丁守中) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), who claims to be an independent, but behaves as if he had his own faction.
Yao belongs to the pro-Taiwan faction and Ting to the pro-China faction, while Ko, who straddles the two and looks to both sides to take advantage of every opportunity, belongs to the fence-sitting faction.
Ko has an advantage as he controls an incumbent’s resources. However, he is also at a disadvantage, as some think he is a wheeling and dealing opportunist whose administrative performance is perhaps not the best.
However, some pro-China advocates worry that Ting is too weak an alternative and therefore might consider throwing their support behind Ko to prevent a DPP candidate winning.
By the same token, some pro-Taiwan supporters could be willing to gamble that the ever-changing Ko will revert to a position that is not harmful to Taiwan rather than risk seeing the China-leaning Ting move into city hall.
Ko seems to have understood this situation, but unprincipled changes are still no different to opportunism.
Yao’s dilemma is that some pro-Taiwan voters would rather see Ko win than allow Ting to take advantage of the situation. Whoever is in the lead between Yao and Ko stands the chance of benefiting from tactical voting.
Yao must consider what he needs to do to win back his supporters’ trust and be chosen by voters who do not want Ting to win.
Ting views Taipei as “Chinese Taipei” and Ko sees no reason to oppose the idea, because communist China is huge and arrogant. Yao, on the other hand, clearly identifies Taipei as the capital of Taiwan.
The three candidates have different views about national identity, but what if Taipei could be identified as a “city of creativity and capital of glory”?
There are three types of Taipei resident — people native to Taipei, people who have moved from central and southern Taiwan, and “Mainlanders” who arrived when the Republic of China was kicked out of China.
Of course, the descendants of these three groups were all born in Taipei. How about working together to create a glorious Taipei, capital of Taiwan?
This is an opportunity for the younger generations to express their creativity.
Taipei should be placed in the foreground, rather than being attached to the adjective “Chinese.”
Yao should call on Taipei residents to display a new political, cultural and economic vision that revitalizes the civic rights of the Taiwanese capital. He should also re-examine urban planning and modify the image of Taipei to one of progress and hope.
As the youngest candidate, Yao would surely win the support of young voters if he called on them to demonstrate the cultural scope of the “city of creativity and capital of glory” based on identification and a sense of belonging.
Taiwan should start anew, beginning from the heart, not only making Taipei Taiwan’s true capital, but also a first-class Asian, or even global, city.
People should not let the adjective “Chinese” narrow and constrain their scope or become a stumbling block on the nation’s path toward normalization.
Taipei should not only be friendly to other Taiwanese cities, it should also stretch out a hand of friendship to the world. Glory follows creativity, and Yao must propose a new vision for the city to help the capital start anew.
Lee Min-yung is a poet.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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