The much anticipated and closely watched special municipality elections took place on Saturday. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) took three of the five mayoral seats. It kept hold, albeit tenuously, on Taipei City and Taipei County (soon to be renamed Sinbei City) and Taichung City and county (soon to be Greater Taichung). However, the KMT was not able to expand its control of local government.
On the other hand, although the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) failed to take any additional mayoral positions, merely consolidating its control over Tainan and Kaohsiung, it did make gains in its overall share of the vote. In fact, it received more votes than the KMT. In addition, the margin of the DPP’s defeat in Sinbei and Taichung was quite narrow.
The people, in their collective wisdom, have spoken, and politicians and pundits alike will have to accept the results. Both major parties have cause to celebrate, just as they have reason to worry, and although it is likely both will claim victory, this must come with a note of caution. If this election tells them anything, it should be that there is still much work to do.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is also chairman of the KMT. He, more than anyone else, needs to scrutinize the election results and try to divine what the people are saying. He can take from his party’s performance the fact that he has passed, by the skin of his teeth, a midterm electoral test. He can probably also take succor from the news that his party successfully defended Taipei.
However, with a turnout of over 50 percent, voters have shown that they harbor doubts about the government. Ma got 7.65 million votes — 58 percent of the total — in the presidential election less than three years ago, but Saturday’s vote count suggests that his support is eroding. This trend was already evident in two county commissioner elections last year and can only be blamed on the performance of Ma and his administration. One must conclude that the electorate’s trust in him is slipping.
It may not be possible for a president to make everyone happy all the time, but he does need to represent the country’s overall interests. This is absolutely fundamental. Ma, however, has repeatedly put his duties as KMT chairman ahead of his responsibilities as president of the nation. He views the DPP as an enemy rather than just a rival. In healthy democracies, presidents should facilitate dialogue between the ruling and opposition parties. Ma, however, prefers to hobnob with the Chinese Communist Party whilst badmouthing the opposition in his own country.
The electorate has shown its displeasure with Ma by casting so many votes for the opposition. He would be unwise to continue governing the country with an ideological aim of “eventual unification” with China. Instead, he should step back and reflect on the political price he has paid for the surge in cross-strait relations that he has overseen during his first two years in office.
On the other hand, he may choose to think that the result of this election confirms the correctness of his policies. In that case, his quest for re-election as president will be a thorny one.
The dimming of Ma’s halo in the eyes of the public also reflects the economic hardships suffered by ordinary people, whose dissatisfaction was expressed in the vote count. The Ma administration has been touting positive economic indicators to confirm its achievements. Although this year’s economic figures have given the government a boost, next year’s may not be so good. More importantly, people’s perception of their economic quality of life keeps getting worse. If this trend continues, the government will find it harder and harder to bluff its way to election victory by quoting statistics.
As to the DPP, although its strategy of striving for victory in three cities, struggling for a fourth and hoping to win in all five did not work out as well as hoped, it won almost half the votes cast at 49.87 percent, surpassing the KMT’s 44.54 percent. The DPP’s share of the vote has grown with each election since the legislative contest of 2008. More than that, this municipal election has seen the two main parties’ vote counts cross over, the DPP’s gains coinciding with the KMT’s losses. If the DPP can seriously reflect on its election performance and stay united, its prospects for the next legislative and presidential elections are bright.
It stands to reason that Taiwan’s democracy becomes more deeply rooted and mature with each passing election. Of course, those who get elected are expected to make good on their campaign promises. Aside from that, problems both old and new thrown up in the course of this election campaign call for reflection and reform.
Vote buying is a blight on Taiwan’s democracy. While some candidates believe that political mastery is unnecessary and paying for votes will do the trick, there are also those among the public who are willing to demean themselves by selling their votes. Saturday’s elections were no exception in this regard. Election graft is an old problem that can only be dealt with by thorough and impartial judicial investigation and prosecution. At the same time, the KMT must divest itself of its remaining party assets, and Taiwan’s political culture must be further transformed.
The shooting of KMT politician Sean Lien (連勝文) in Taipei County the evening before the vote shocked the nation. As soon as the shooting took place, several politicians and media tried to play it up in an effort to influence the election. It is hard to say at this point whether the shooting was an incident arising from a dispute between individuals, or a political one related to the elections.
Before the evening was out, the National Police Agency expressed the view that Lien’s assailant had mistaken him for someone else and that the shooting was not political. Nevertheless, some media rushed to draw connections between the shooting and the election, implying that the attack was the work of the KMT’s rivals. They called it “a stain on our democracy” and even fanned the flames by calling on people to “counter the bullet by casting a ballot.”
In contrast, overseas media treated the incident more cautiously. Reuters news agency told its readers: “Media reports said the man was a member of a gang and seemed to have no political motive.” The New York Times said: “The motive for the shooting was unknown,” and The Associated Press quoted a local television report as saying a suspect apprehended by the police was nicknamed Horse Face, suggesting a link to Taiwanese criminal gangs.
It is hard to say what influence, if any, the shooting had on the vote. What is clear, however, is that manipulation by politically motivated media who rushed to judge the case before the facts were known is unjust and alien to the function of a healthy democracy.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER AND JULIAN CLEGG
I came to Taiwan to pursue my degree thinking that Taiwanese are “friendly,” but I was welcomed by Taiwanese classmates laughing at my friend’s name, Maria (瑪莉亞). At the time, I could not understand why they were mocking the name of Jesus’ mother. Later, I learned that “Maria” had become a stereotype — a shorthand for Filipino migrant workers. That was because many Filipino women in Taiwan, especially those who became house helpers, happen to have that name. With the rapidly increasing number of foreigners coming to Taiwan to work or study, more Taiwanese are interacting, socializing and forming relationships with
Earlier signs suggest that US President Donald Trump’s policy on Taiwan is set to move in a more resolute direction, as his administration begins to take a tougher approach toward America’s main challenger at the global level, China. Despite its deepening economic woes, China continues to flex its muscles, including conducting provocative military drills off Taiwan, Australia and Vietnam recently. A recent Trump-signed memorandum on America’s investment policy was more about the China threat than about anything else. Singling out the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as a foreign adversary directing investments in American companies to obtain cutting-edge technologies, it said
The recent termination of Tibetan-language broadcasts by Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a significant setback for Tibetans both in Tibet and across the global diaspora. The broadcasts have long served as a vital lifeline, providing uncensored news, cultural preservation and a sense of connection for a community often isolated by geopolitical realities. For Tibetans living under Chinese rule, access to independent information is severely restricted. The Chinese government tightly controls media and censors content that challenges its narrative. VOA and RFA broadcasts have been among the few sources of uncensored news available to Tibetans, offering insights
Chinese social media influencer “Yaya in Taiwan” (亞亞在台灣), whose real name is Liu Zhenya (劉振亞), made statements advocating for “reunifying Taiwan [with China] through military force.” After verifying that Liu did indeed make such statements, the National Immigration Agency revoked her dependency-based residency permit. She must now either leave the country voluntarily or be deported. Operating your own page and becoming an influencer require a certain amount of support and user traffic. You must successfully gain approval for your views and attract an audience. Although Liu must leave the country, I cannot help but wonder how many more “Yayas” are still
RSS