On Nov. 29, Taiwanese sent a clear signal to the world by rejecting the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in the nine-in-one elections; the elections turned into a referendum on the KMT’s China policy and its trustworthiness in voters’ eyes.
In the elections voters chose special municipality mayors and councilors, Aboriginal district representatives and councilors, city mayors/county commissioners, city/county councilors, township mayors and councilors, and borough/village wardens in six special municipalities and 16 cities and counties. A total of 11,130 officials were elected, and all are set to serve a four-year term, according to the Central Election Commission Web site.
The significance of this election is its scale and number of voters — covering Taiwan’s whole territory and all eligible voters (18,511,356) and a total of 19,636 candidates at all levels — as well as its timing, only 14 months before the January 2016 presidential and legislative elections. The nine-in-one elections are widely perceived as a barometer of voters’ satisfaction with the performance of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration and confidence in its policy and handling of Taiwan-China affairs.
The election outcome shows the KMT suffering a crushing defeat — its worst election defeat since retreating to Taiwan in 1949. Of the six special municipalities, the KMT won only one (down from the previous four) — New Taipei City — by a small margin, garnering 50.06 percent of the vote versus the DPP’s 48.78 percent and the KMT on 50.06 percent; in the other five, the KMT lost by huge margins except in Taoyuan County.
In Taipei the results were 57.16 percent for an independent candidate and 40.82 percent for the KMT; in Taoyuan, the DPP garnered 51 percent of the vote and the KMT 47.97 percent; in Greater Taichung the DPP won 57.06 percent and the KMT 42.94 percent; in Greater Tainan the DPP received 72.9 percent and the KMT 27.1 percent, and in Greater Kaohsiung the DPP won 68.09 percent of the vote and the KMT 30.89 percent.
For the six special municipality councilors, the percentages of the ballots cast were: in Taipei 39.27 percent for the DPP and 38.57 percent for the KMT; in New Taipei City 43.32 percent for the DPP and 38.95 percent for the KMT; in Taoyuan 31.46 percent for the DPP and 37.52 percent for the KMT; in Greater Taichung 39.91 percent for the DPP and 38.23 percent for the KMT; in Greater Tainan 46.03 percent for the DPP and 27.93 percent for the KMT; in Greater Kaohsiung 47.35 percent for the DPP and 34.48 percent for the KMT; the KMT won only in Taoyuan.
The percentage of all ballots cast for each party were 47.55 percent for the DPP and 40.7 percent for the KMT. This data could be important in extrapolating voting behavior in the 2016 national elections, as there might not be enough time for the KMT to reverse these trends.
In response to the defeat, then-premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) and his 81-member Cabinet resigned; two of the six KMT vice chairmen also stepped down, as well as the party’s secretary-general. Days later, Ma also stepped down as KMT chairman, but without amending the party charter, which states that a KMT member serving as Republic of China (ROC) president will also automatically be the party chairman. The clause was added last year to ensure that Ma had the power to appoint his friends to protect him after he steps down from the presidency in 2016.
What caused this landslide defeat for the KMT only two years and 10 months after Ma’s re-election in January 2012?
First is the Ma administration’s poor performance.
The Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) that Ma signed with China, effective Sept. 12, 2010, only fueled an outflow of capital, technology and industries from Taiwan, resulting in the loss of employment, greater disparities in income and the lowest personal incomes in 16 years. This is causing frustration, particularly among the younger generation. Party corruption, judicial manipulation, Ma’s China policy and the recent food scandals have also had an impact. A survey conducted by the Taiwan Thinktank on Tuesday last week found that 74 percent of respondents were dissatisfied with Ma’s performance as president.
Second is the Ma administration’s behind-the-scenes operations in dealing with China.
Alerted to the negative impact of the ECFA, Taiwanese have been more watchful of the president’s dealings with China. In trying to push unification with China through economic integration, Ma turned Taiwan-China affairs into an under-the-table operation, which led to the rise of the Sunflower movement in March. The Ma administration was widely perceived as betraying Taiwan’s interests, and this perception mobilized the public — particularly the young generation who feel they have few prospects for the future — to stand up against the government.
Third is the rise of social consciousness among young people.
After a series of protests against the continued construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, the mysterious death of army corporal Hung Chung-chiu (洪仲丘) and a restrictive Referendum Act (公民投票法), the rise of the Sunflower movement shocked the Ma administration.
Demonstrators occupied the legislative chamber for 24 days from March to April to protest the passing of the cross-strait service trade agreement without legislative review. The protest effectively channeled all opposition energies into a major theme: protect the nation’s democracy and make Taiwan a law-abiding society without fear of injustice and with prospects of a future for all. Half a million people walked the streets of Taipei on March 30 in support of the students.
Fourth is the use of unacceptable election tactics.
While independent Taipei mayoral candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) employed modern technology to mobilize support and quickly disperse negative rumors, the KMT used traditional tactics. As the election approached, the KMT scrambled to try and reverse the downtrend by trying to convince voters that voting against the party would undermine the nation’s economy, drive investors away and ultimately led to the collapse of the ROC. Those tactics had worked in the past, but did not work this time.
In its scrambling, two senior KMT personnel made insulting remarks about Ko, triggering an uproar across the nation. Former vice president Lien Chan (連戰), father of Ko’s KMT rival, Sean Lien (連勝文), said Ko’s father and Ko were second-generation and third-generation Japanese imperialists; former premier Hau Pei-tsun (郝柏村) reproached Ko’s father for being a Japanese imperial serviceman, referring to his service as a school teacher and administrator under Japanese rule.
Those remarks were seen as attempts to mobilize ethnic Chinese to vote against Ko, who is Taiwanese. Over the past decades, Taiwan has worked hard to create an ethnically harmonious society, and such remarks certainly turned off some supporters.
What are the implications of this election?
First, it seems unlikely that the KMT can regain power at the national level in the near future; some observers predict not in the next 10 years. Although the defeat was caused by the Ma administration’s poor performance and its China policy, regaining power requires the ability to win people’s hearts. The KMT has yet to show that it can transform itself from a foreign regime to a home-grown party.
Second, Taiwanese have awoken and have been gaining confidence. In the civil movements of the past five or six years, particularly the Sunflower movement, young people have stepped onto the stage, with a clear sense of mission to protect the nation’s democracy and transform Taiwan into a just and fair society. They are teaching their parents and spreading the word to their villages.
Third, it appears very likely that Taiwanese democracy will become more deeply and strongly rooted. As Ko has said: “Believing in politics is to rediscover conscientiousness; that the government should be open, transparent and invite citizens’ participation; that democracy takes people as the master.”
On the campaign trail, Ko seems to have followed through on his words; he declared an end to fundraising a week prior to the election when his warchest had reached a predetermined level, and he donated the remaining campaign funds to a hospital three days after winning the election. This sets a new model for governance, replacing the KMT’s corrupt network.
Four, all parties involved need to rethink their China policies. DPP Secretary-General Joseph Wu (吳釗燮) said on Wednesday last week that the elections were not a referendum on cross-strait policy, as “cross-strait relations were not debated as part of this election.” Technically, that is true.
However, KMT policy and practice have been debated in the past on many occasions; thus, this election is an indirect referendum and a declaration of the people’s choice. As we move forward, we all need to rethink the policy on China, taking the choice of Taiwanese into consideration.
Shyu-tu Lee is the co-editor of Taiwan’s Struggle: Voices of the Taiwanese.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS