Not surprisingly, in the final countdown to the five special municipality elections on Nov. 27, the Taiwanese political scene has been full of negative campaigns, smear attacks, tears, partisan talk show finger-pointing and last-minute dirty tricks.
There is no doubt that the results of the elections will have implications for Taiwan’s political landscape. Nevertheless, what matters most is the extent to which party politics will evolve in the post-municipality-election era and what aspects of policy debate the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) decide to carry over to future legislative and presidential elections.
The number of seats and total votes that each party can garner will determine the winner and the loser. The ruling KMT and President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration need not only ensure the continuation of its governance of Taipei, the soon-to-be formed Sinbei City (the upgraded Taipei County) and Taichung, but also to avoid a further decline in votes on the heels of the three-in-one local elections in December last year and a series of legislative by-elections. The DPP hopes to win more seats in addition to the cities of Kaohsiung and Tainan, and outnumber the KMT in voter turnout.
Despite old campaign practices, the voters are witnessing the emergence of a new electoral culture and campaign style, which constitute a driving force for the maturation of Taiwan’s political culture. For example, DPP Taipei mayoral candidate Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) and Sinbei City mayoral candidate DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) have both introduced a non-traditional campaign style.
Faced with the reality that the KMT enjoys more vote leverage in both cities, Su and Tsai are downplaying partisan disputes and portraying their campaigns as a debate on governing capability.
If Su and Tsai are to win, it will signify a transformation in Taiwan’s political culture to an institutionalized party competition that centers more on rationality, moderation and bipartisanship. If Su or Tsai represent the DPP for the presidential election in 2012 or 2016, they will both have the legitimacy and the popularity to help shift the DPP’s image of a conventionally pro-independence force to that of a responsible and responsive political party that transcends the blue-green dichotomy in Taiwanese society. The debate over the party’s future cross-strait policy will also be based largely on pragmatism and take international expectations more into account.
If Su and Tsai stick to what they have advocated in the campaign and successfully convince the middle-of-the-road voters to endorse them, Taiwanese politics and the DPP will enter into a new phase of democratic transformation where the voters’ decision will be based more on leadership, governing capability and government efficiency than the issue of unification or independence.
As the ruling power, Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) has faced tremendous pressures from Su’s moderate and non-partisan campaign strategy. The KMT also faced a similar crisis in Sinbei City when Taipei County Commissioner Chou Hsi-wei (周錫瑋) was ranked as the worst governor in Taiwan. To secure a win, the KMT replaced Chou with former vice premier Eric Chu (朱立倫).
Even though the special municipality elections are local by nature, they have been portrayed as a midterm election for Ma. He and the KMT can not afford to lose either Taipei or Sinbei City because it will signify a vote of no confidence in Ma’s governance.
That’s the main strategic calculation behind the KMT’s planned parade tomorrow to rally hard-core KMT supporters. Given that most KMT supporters were reluctant to go out and vote for the party in the previous elections, Ma and the party’s leadership believe that the only effective way to beat Su is to utilize the KMT’s electoral -advantage in Taipei to increase the blue camp’s voter mobilization.
From a campaign perspective, is natural for the KMT to highlight the blue-green division in Taipei and Sinbei cities to prevent light-blue voters from supporting DPP candidates. Nevertheless, this serves to accelerate the deterioration of Taiwan’s political culture along partisan lines and ethnic divisions.
Since the KMT has controlled both the executive and legislative branches of government since Ma took office, the KMT should take full responsibility for the broadening of the partisan divide within Taiwanese society. Absolute governance means absolute responsibility. It is irresponsible to blame all the faults on the opposition DPP for what is in fact the KMT’s own poor governance.
After a decade of blue-green political wrestling, Taiwanese voters are craving new leaders with bold and realistic agendas, coupled with the skill to communicate and persuade. Most importantly, most voters expect a new mayor who can deliver on his or her campaign promises and refrain from using partisan divisions to distract from poor governance.
This is the true meaning of the special municipality elections.
Liu Shih-chung is a senior research fellow at the Taipei-based Taiwan Brain Trust.
US President Donald Trump last week told reporters that he had signed about 12 letters to US trading partners, which were set to be sent out yesterday, levying unilateral tariff rates of up to 70 percent from Aug. 1. However, Trump did not say which countries the letters would be sent to, nor did he discuss the specific tariff rates, reports said. The news of the tariff letters came as Washington and Hanoi reached a trade deal earlier last week to cut tariffs on Vietnamese exports to the US to 20 percent from 46 percent, making it the first Asian country
As things heated up in the Middle East in early June, some in the Pentagon resisted American involvement in the Israel-Iran war because it would divert American attention and resources from the real challenge: China. This was exactly wrong. Rather, bombing Iran was the best thing that could have happened for America’s Asia policy. When it came to dealing with the Iranian nuclear program, “all options are on the table” had become an American mantra over the past two decades. But the more often US administration officials insisted that military force was in the cards, the less anyone believed it. After
On Monday, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) delivered a welcome speech at the ILA-ASIL Asia-Pacific Research Forum, addressing more than 50 international law experts from more than 20 countries. With an aim to refute the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) claim to be the successor to the 1945 Chinese government and its assertion that China acquired sovereignty over Taiwan, Lin articulated three key legal positions in his speech: First, the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration were not legally binding instruments and thus had no legal effect for territorial disposition. All determinations must be based on the San Francisco Peace
During an impromptu Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) rally on Tuesday last week to protest what the party called the unfairness of the judicial system, a young TPP supporter said that if Taiwan goes to war, he would “surrender to the [Chinese] People’s Liberation Army [PLA] with unyielding determination.” The rally was held after former Taipei deputy mayor Pong Cheng-sheng’s (彭振聲) wife took her life prior to Pong’s appearance in court to testify in the Core Pacific corruption case involving former Taipei mayor and TPP chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲). The TPP supporter said President William Lai (賴清德) was leading them to die on
RSS