At the end of World War II, when other nations were being granted the right to self-determination through the Charter of the UN, Taiwan’s struggle for democracy had just begun and it entered its winter of discontent. That winter included the White Terror era, about 38 years of Martial Law and continuous party-state rule by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
The hopes of Taiwanese that their democracy would flourish were muted by its slow progress. It was only four decades later in 1992 that the public could elect legislators and 1996 when they could choose a president. Despite having multiple political parties by this time, Taiwan still seemed in doldrums that kept it from emerging as a fully fledged democracy. Voters of the two major parties seemed in gridlock of only voting for their party’s candidate.
However, over the past year the long-awaited reversal came as a significant part of the population appeared to be shaking off what some call the vestiges of the KMT’s Stockholm syndrome, where voters thought it was the only party capable of properly handling the economy and the entire country.
This change is no doubt due to the generations born after the lifting of Martial Law reaching voting age after growing up with a different sense of history and its teachings.
The Strawberry generation came and was followed by the Wild Strawberries phase; as each generation was born and entered the education system, it did not have the burden of past indoctrination. The current generation, what could be called the Sunflower generation, show that they believe Taiwan can choose its leaders from either party and can hold them accountable for steering the nation on the correct path.
Part of this can be attributed to how people have lost confidence in President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and realize that with his lack of progress, he has been more style than substance. He could no longer count on traditional ramrod tactics, despite his party having the majority in the Legislative Yuan. However, the greatest signs of hope are seen in Taipei and Tainan after last year’s nine-in-one elections.
One of the biggest changes was the election of independent Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) as mayor of Taipei. Taipei has been a pan-blue stronghold throughout the years. The only time that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) won was when the KMT split their vote with two rival candidates. At that time former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) won with 43.6 percent of the vote; the following election, even though he had been a popular mayor, he still lost to Ma.
That is part of why the election of Ko was significant. In this election the DPP did not enter a candidate and preferred to back Ko. The KMT entered a scion of a wealthy KMT family, Sean Lien (連勝文). Thus it was the KMT against an independent.
Ko’s victory was not marginal; it was outstanding. He received 853,983 votes, which was 57.1 percent of the total. The KMT candidate Lien received 609,932 votes — 40.8 percent of the total. What is more surprising, however, is to look at the numbers from previous elections. Ko received more votes than former Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) in 2010 or 2006. Ko’s percentage of the vote was also higher. Hau won with 55.6 percent in 2010 and 53 percent in 2006.
On the other side of the coin, Lien received less votes than former DPP chairperson Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) in 2010 and less than Chen in either time that the former president ran in 1994 and 1998. Percentage wise, Lien came off even worse; his 40.82 percent of the vote was not only less than that of Su and Chen, it was even less than the DPP’s loss in 2006 when former premier Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) lost with only 525,869 votes. The only DPP candidate that Lien could claim to have beaten in percentage numbers was DPP Legislator Lee Ying-yuan (李應元), who lost to Ma in 2002 after garnering a mere 35 percent of the vote.
Whether Ko will be a good mayor or not will be tested in the coming four years, but the significance of his win should not be lost. Taipei has long been considered a pan-blue stronghold. It was not just a case that some of the KMT had not voted for Lien or that some did not vote at all.
The voter turnout was the second-largest in Taipei history with 1,494,046 and was only bettered by that of 1,498,901 in 1998 when Ma, with 51.1 percent of the vote, defeated Chen’s 45.9 percent. No, the changes in voting demographics with voters choosing the best candidate, regardless of party, had passed the tipping point even in Taipei.
The second major revelation came in Tainan. There, the DPP won in one of its traditional strongholds. The unusual news came in the aftermath, when city councilors were selecting the city council speaker. Since the DPP had 28 of the 57 seats in the council and the KMT had only 16, it was anticipated that the DPP candidate would win easily. That did not happen; the DPP candidate received only 26 votes, while the KMT candidate got 29.
Vote buying, which has been a continuous legacy of the KMT party-state days, reared its head. Its roots run deep on both sides of the aisle. Both parties had personnel involved in either vote buying or receiving money for votes.
Here the voters and all parties, as well as independents, learned a clear lesson for the future — no party is completely clean. Tainan Mayor William Lai (賴清德) then refused to convene the city council for the guilt was evident on all sides. Finally both parties joined forces in condemning the practice of vote buying.
This all augurs well for the presidential and legislative elections in 2016. The winter of Taiwan’s discontent has not yet completely passed, but the populace is learning and growing more critical and analytical. Taiwanese have much to be hopeful for in the future and they can best perhaps remember the words of Shelley, “If winter comes, can spring be far behind?”
Jerome Keating is a commentator in Taipei.
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
RSS