The primary elections of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to nominate candidates for the year-end legislative elections and the Kaohsiung City Council by-election took place last month. The results of these two elections can be seen as the first indicator of a possible change in Taiwan's political power distribution in the "post-320" period.
In the poll held in 10 constituencies for the KMT's primary, it's conspicuous that those candidates with more rational, middle-course images gained the most support. The result of surveys held in Taipei County, Keelung, Hsinchu City, Taichung City, Yunlin County, Tainan City, Tainan County and Taipei City's first and second constituencies shows that among those who won a high level of support, less than 10 percent were candidates who often take aggressive action.
Some of the candidates with reputations for taking aggressive action had unexpectedly low support rates. The information hidden within the result may be that what most people want is a KMT that follows a middle, rational and modest course, rather than a party with an aggressive protest image.
As for the Kaohsiung City Council by-election, the most significant outcome was the total failure of the four candidates nominated by People First Party (PFP). In the fifth constituency, with seven seats, the PFP's only candidate was Chieh Gi-huai (簡吉輝), the son of former councilor Chieh Gin-cheng (簡金城). He unexpectedly lost the election, receiving only about 4,000 votes, a drastic fall from the 11,000 votes previously gained by his father.
By the same token, the PFP lost a significant amount of support, which fell from 11.99 percent to 9.48 percent in total. In contrast, the KMT's support level rose from 25.76 percent to 32.18 percent. PFP councilor Wang Chia-tseng (
Furthermore, both the election losses of the six candidates from nine so-called "bribery families" and the fall in the number of voters from nearly 760,000 to about 300,000 implies two things: one the one hand, voters' expectations are for clean politics, while, on the other hand, the reality of dirty politics may be driving voters away in the first place. People become indifferent to elections and decide not to vote. This phenomenon deserves more attention from all parties.
Also, some structural problems within the KMT and the PFP were revealed in the two elections. For the KMT, the most obvious was the huge gap between the preferences of the party and those of the people. In many constituencies, we saw candidates with high support rates in the poll, but very low support in the vote by party members. My own case is a good example of this.
The contradiction was most clearly demonstrated in Hsinchu City. In the poll, incumbent legislator Chang Tsai-mei (
However, in the vote by party members, Ko's 57.4 percent, in comparison with Chang's 6.4 percent, unexpectedly turned Ko's defeat into victory. As a result, Ko won the nomination on a small 2 percent lead, after the figures were combined (the public poll was given a 70 percent weighting, with the party member vote weighted at 30 percent).
This gap between the party's preferred candidate and that of the people may be due to strict requirements for the payment for KMT membership fees and the high mobilization of the Huang Fu-hsin branch. These two factors enlarged the structural bias of party members' votes. To what extent this will bias the result of the year-end election is worthy of attention.
As for the PFP, Chiu Yi (
However, beyond these superficial reasons, the main cause lies in the PFP's lack of grass-roots politicians to run local support networks. The difficulties in nominating and campaigning are just consequences of this. Soong's absence during the campaign could possibly have been related to the bad images of his candidates.
In conclusion, these two elections were undoubtedly important indicators for the year-end legislative elections. In predicting the future political power distribution in Taiwan, those who carefully choose a middle, rational and modest course, respond to people's expectations for clean politics, effectively make adjustments to avoid structural bias within their party and seriously focus on building up grassroots networks, will have better chances of winning the election.
Apollo Chen is a KMT legislator.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS