Yesterday's mayoral and council elections in Taipei and Kaohsiung have provided mixed messages for the forthcoming presidential election in early 2004. Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) won an overwhelming victory, which must propel him into consideration for the KMT presidential nomination for president.
]Ma clearly is popular with both mainlanders and northern Taiwanese voters. He is articulate in Chinese and English and meets difficult questions from the foreign and domestic press with aplomb. Furthermore, in the past few years his ability in Taiwanese has improved considerably.
But Ma's victory is not unqualified. The DPP's late nomination of Lee Ying-yuan (李應元) for the Taipei mayoralty and a lack of solidarity in Lee's campaign headquarters meant his campaign never really took off. Even so, Lee Ying-yuan still managed to obtain over 35 percent of the vote in Taipei, the notional DPP base.
Importantly, the structure of Taipei's electorate is very different from that of Taiwan as a whole. Taipei is much wealthier and has many more mainlanders than the rest of the nation.
Mayor Ma campaigned widely throughout Taiwan in last year's legislative, county executive and mayoral elections, but his support of KMT candidates did not prevent the DPP from winning in southern Taiwan. His strength in the south remains to be tested.
The DPP's victory in Kaohsiung is also not unqualified. A few weeks ago, Mayor Frank Hsieh was well ahead in the polls, but the election became much closer in recent days. Mayor Hsieh had the advantage of incumbency and his opponent, KMT nominee Huang Jun-ying, was relatively unknown. In addition, Kaohsiung is part of the DPP's southern stronghold and Mayor Hsieh should have won a strong victory.
The city council elections also left mixed messages. The KMT did marginally better than the DPP in Taipei, both in terms of seats and in proportion of the vote. The KMT won 20 seats with 38 percent of the vote, while the DPP obtained 17 seats with just under 33 percent. The PFP won eight seats with close to 15 percent of the vote.
Rising like Lazarus after last year's devastating legislative loss, the New Party won five of the six seats and 9 percent of the vote in Taipei. The TSU won no seats with less than 4 percent of the vote. Overall, this gives the so-called "pan blue" forces 33 of 52 seats, a huge majority for Mayor Ma.
In Kaohsiung, the DPP did marginally better than the KMT, winning 14 seats to the KMT's 12, though each won about one-quarter of the total vote. The PFP won seven seats with about 15 percent of the vote while the TSU won two seats with less than 5 percent.
Non-partisans won nine seats in Kaohsiung with almost 30 percent of the vote. The New Party ran only one candidate, who lost badly. Mayor Hsieh will have to win over most of the non-partisans to have a working majority in the new city council, though this new council will be better than the previous one elected in 1998.
In many ways yesterday's election resembles a midterm poll. At the time of last year's legislative election, the DPP lacked a cooperative legislature and could claim obstruction from the opposition. This time the DPP lacked excuses for the poor economic situation of Taiwan and the failure of policy towards farmers and fishermen.
The new star arising from the election must be Mayor Ma. KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and PFP Chairman James Soong(宋楚瑜) have little to cheer about. Soong had no candidate for either mayoral race and his city council candidates obtained less than 16 percent of the vote in Taipei and 15 percent of the vote in Kaohsiung. These minority shares of the vote, while useful for council coalitions, hardly form the basis for a major presidential campaign in 2004.
Lien Chan too did not particularly distinguish himself. The partial KMT success in these elections do not compensate for his weak third place in the 2000 presidential election and the poor KMT showing in last year's legislative election. Much more of the glory goes to Mayor Ma rather than Lien. While one cannot be certain, both Lien and Soong seem to be yesterday's men. Mayor Ma, on the other hand, will shine in the KMT firmament in 2008, if not in 2004.
Writing as a foreigner for an English-language newspaper in Taiwan, I would note that both DPP mayoral candidates, Lee Ying-yuan and Frank Hsieh, refused repeated requests for interviews with this and other reporters. In contrast, Mayor Ma and the three non-DPP candidates in Kaohsiung all spoke with this and other foreign reporters several times.
The DPP has strongly supported globalization in its policies. During its rise, the DPP's links with the foreign press undoubtedly provided much sympathy and support. Hopefully, the DPP has not turned inward and will revise its policy towards the foreign and English-language press by the next election.
Professor Bruce Jacobs (
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS