Cold, frugal and chaotic are words that aptly describe this year's election campaign.
Because dim economic prospects have made fund-raising difficult for candidates, this year's election tactics generally tend to be low-profile. The previously ubiquitous campaign flags and propaganda are now few and far between. The campaign atmosphere this year is much quieter than ever before. Amid several dozen political parties and more than a thousand candidates, everyone is trying to dish out as many attention-grabbing antics as possible on expenditures as small as can be manage.
To add to tumult, former president Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) split with the KMT and his campaigning for the newly established Taiwan Solidarity Union has put considerable pressure on both the KMT and the PFP. The chairpersons of political parties, who used to be the chieftains on the campaign trail, are now becoming election foot soldiers. But far from hearing any substantial policy suggestions from them, we are being treated to a daily diet of mysterious name-calling, with aversions to "someone," "old people," or "a man who refuses to retire." These are indicators of the poor quality of Taiwan's party politics. Is there any hope for the nation's democracy if our cowboy-party leaders continue to muddy up the election atmosphere?
Now the party chairs have an opportunity to get out of the campaign quagmire. DPP chairman Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) recently suggested a policy debate for the chairpersons of all the political parties, during which media representatives would ask questions on various issues and the chairpersons would give their opinions. Such a policy debate would bring the election campaign back to policy and allow the party chairs to play campaign roles that befit their positions.
The election results this time around will decide how a legislative majority will be formed and where the Cabinet-forming powers will reside. These will be key in determining whether Taiwan will see an end to the current minority Cabinet, or whether an opposition majority will have the support to form a Cabinet. A policy debate between party chairpersons would help focus minds on the challenges that lay ahead
Ever since President Chen Shui-bian (
The apportioning of blame for political instability and economic slowdown, the policy platforms of each political party on revitalizing the economy, eradicating "black gold," the Taiwanization-Sinicization dichotomy, the future direction of cross-strait relations, the halving of the legislature, the single-member district two votes system -- these are all important issues for Taiwan's future. Voters have a right to ask each major political party about their vision for the future before going to the polls.
Taiwan's election culture has been commonly marked by vote-buying, campaign violence and publicity stunts. This year, the difficulty of raising funds and the government's massive crackdown on vote-buying may help create a relatively cleaner election environment. However, Taiwanese society will not be satisfied with a mere decrease in the usual election shenanigans.
Every party chairperson has a responsibility to set an example for a positive election campaign. Instead of offering a daily round of name calling, party chairs should participate in a policy debate in a civilized manner. This would be a good beginning for getting Taiwan's election culture on track once and for all.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS