Voters recently proved the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) wrong after the party mobilized almost two-thirds of its legislators to drum up support for its candidate in a legislative by-election in Miaoli County (苗栗), a traditional KMT stronghold. The KMT still ended up losing the election, which did not come as a surprise to people who see the loss as a warning to the KMT for its inability to review its performance.
This raised the question of whether something similar will happen in the upcoming legislative by-election in Taipei City’s Da-an District (大安) in two weeks’ time and even the three-in-one election at the end of the year. If the KMT starts to lose its political grip, it will have a massive impact on both the party and President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
“The sea can carry a boat, but also overturn it.” This ancient Chinese adage is a good reflection of growing voter awareness over the past decade. For example, the transitions of political power in 2000 and last year and the changes in the ratio of government to opposition legislators, mayors and county commissioners in the 2001 and 2005 elections were all the result of voters using their ballots to teach those in power a lesson.
For example, in the 2001 legislative elections, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) gained 87 seats, making it the legislature’s largest party, while the KMT and the People First Party (PFP) gained 68 and 46 seats, respectively. Of the 23 seats up for grabs in the mayoral and county commissioner elections that year, the DPP and the KMT gained nine seats each, while the newly formed PFP gained two seats and the New Party gained one seat for the first time.
In total, the pan-green camp gained 14 seats, while the pan-blue camp gained only nine, with a transfer of political power taking place in 12 cities and counties, almost half the total number of contested seats. In addition, more than half of the number of candidates running for re-election — eight of 14 — failed in their bid.
This election extended the trend from the 2000 presidential election in that once again voters in the north supported the pan-blue camp, while voters in the south supported the pan-green camp. However, there was a big turnaround in 2005, when pan-blue candidates won office in 17 cities and counties in northern and central Taiwan and on the outlying islands, five of which were formerly headed by DPP mayors and commissioners, while the DPP managed to keep office in just six cities and counties in southern Taiwan.
The overall number of pan-blue votes and pan-blue voter participation increased, while it dropped for the pan-green camp. Although the DPP had been in power for five years at that time, corruption and ethical decadence saw voters lose trust and hope in then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), and they used their votes to give the party a sharp warning. This allowed then-KMT chairman Ma to move into the presidency last year.
Now it is Ma’s turn to govern Taiwan. The majority of KMT members, old and doddering, pay no attention to monitoring by the legislature. They seem to think that playing the anti-Chen card can help cover up their lack of political skill. In addition, the KMT has recently been acting in a thoughtless and shameless manner in the legislature in attempts to arrogate power to themselves. Examples of such acts can be seen from its slackness in pushing for sunshine legislation and the way in which the party is trying to expand its power by amending the Computer-Processed Personal Data Protection Act (電腦處理個人資料保護法).
This has resulted in dropping political performance, increasing unemployment levels and tough times for the public. These are crucial factors contributing to the KMT’s loss in the Miaoli by-election.
Kang Shih-ju (康世儒), the winner of the Miaoli legislative by-election, who had quit the KMT to run as an independent and is well known for his commitment to service, put it well when he said: “This by-election shows us that the people of Miaoli have a more mature understanding of democracy and it encourages the younger generation to stand up and take an interest in public affairs.” This is enough to show that voters are aware of what is happening.
Small changes often reveal a general trend for future developments and the KMT cannot afford to dismiss the changes that have started to occur in the hearts of voters and what they hope for. However, the KMT’s first reaction to the Miaoli loss was that “we did not try hard enough.”
They also blamed the poor economy and their candidate’s lack of charisma, showing us that the party not only fails to see the forest for the trees, but also that it has its head in the sand.
Presidential Office Secretary-General Chan Chun-po (詹春柏) maintained a straight face and actually told a press conference that “legislative elections are local in nature and you should not exaggerate the impact of his loss on President Ma,” while other senior members of the KMT have said they will mobilize all party members to “annihilate” any chance former premier and former DPP chairman Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) might have in the elections for Taipei County commissioner.
What is the KMT trying to prove by such arrogance? Is it trying to test the patience of voters? The legislative by-election in Taipei’s Da-an District may not necessarily repeat the result in Miaoli, but if the heightened awareness of voters brings the KMT another loss, it would not be an accident. Rather, it would be a warning from voters that the KMT must reassess its inability to examine itself and its mistakes.
Lu I-ming is the former publisher and president of the Taiwan Shin Sheng Daily News.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS