The Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) potential split came to an end with President Chen Shui-bian (
The episode showed that unity is the only solution to the DPP's survival and continued governance. Its tradition of open and pluralist competition is also key.
As a lame-duck president, Chen taking over the DPP chairmanship also illustrates the uniqueness of Taiwanese politics. Not only is he trying to remain politically relevant for the remainder of his term, he remains the main political heavyweight in the pan-green camp.
After a 13-day absence and repeated rumors about his health, Hsieh restarted his campaign following Chen's announcement. Hsieh invited Chinese National Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (
Contrary to his earlier low-key endorsement of Chen's referendum agenda, Hsieh demonstrated his absolute support for the referendum and accepted the issue as one of the most important of the presidential campaign.
Despite the dramatic Chen-Hsieh cooperation and the reorientation of the DPP's campaign, there are three major challenges that both men need to tackle.
The first is the extent to which Chen might overshadow Hsieh in the course of the campaign. When questioned by reporters on how they would work together on the campaign, Hsieh said Chen was in charge of state affairs while he was running the election campaign.
Chen said he did not foresee coordination problems because Hsieh would rule on campaign strategy matters.
Nevertheless, given that the referendum campaign is the most controversial issue and Chen's dual role, his words and deeds will no doubt draw the most media attention, which could marginalize Hsieh. This explains why Hsieh raised his profile on the referendum bid.
A clearer division of labor should be arranged between Hsieh's camp and DPP headquarters and more coordination is needed within the green camp to keep everyone on the same page.
Second, Hsieh must refocus the campaign to become more candidate-centered. Despite his limited personal charisma, Ma should not pose strong competition for Hsieh, who is one of the DPP's most visionary and creative political leaders. He proved his capabilities as an administrator both as Kaohsiung City mayor and as premier.
Ma, on the other hand, has a long record of opposition to democratic reform and the notion of Taiwan-centric consciousness. His recent push for a referendum to use any flexible name -- including the Republic of China or Taiwan -- to return to the UN was simply an attempt to assimilate the DPP agenda.
Ma's performance as Taipei mayor was also lackluster, though people may not realize it because he was protected by the pro-unification media.
Not only has Ma failed as KMT chairman to achieve his internal reform proposals, he supported the party's irrational boycott of the DPP government programs.
When it comes to the question of who is more capable of leading the nation in the process of becoming a normalized country, prosperous economy and advanced democracy, Hsieh's greatest competitor seems to be Chen, not Ma.
Most importantly, Hsieh must convincingly explain to voters how he would implement his notion of "seeking reconciliation and coexistence" for Taiwan in the wake of what is expected to be an increasingly negative and ugly presidential campaign.
Liu Kuan-teh is Taipei-based political commentator.
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
Sitting in their homes typing on their keyboards and posting on Facebook things like, “Taiwan has already lost its democracy,” “The Democratic Progressive Party is a party of green communists,” or “President William Lai [賴清德] is a dictator,” then turning around and heading to the convenience store to buy a tea egg and an iced Americano, casually chatting in a Line group about which news broadcast was more biased this morning — are such people truly clear about the kind of society in which they are living? This is not meant to be sarcasm or criticism, but an exhausted honesty.
Much has been said about the significance of the recall vote, but here is what must be said clearly and without euphemism: This vote is not just about legislative misconduct. It is about defending Taiwan’s sovereignty against a “united front” campaign that has crept into the heart of our legislature. Taiwanese voters on Jan. 13 last year made a complex decision. Many supported William Lai (賴清德) for president to keep Taiwan strong on the world stage. At the same time, some hoped that giving the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) a legislative majority would offer a
RSS