The apparent popularity of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Kaohsiung mayoral candidate Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) is puzzling, to say the least.
The so-called “Han tide” has been partly attributed to his unpolished, down-to-earth, gaffe-prone manner. This has allowed him to distance himself from the increasingly unpopular model of the smooth politician.
During a campaign event organized by a women’s association in Kaohsiung, Han was speaking about drumming up overseas investment to bring more jobs to the city when he said: “If overseas investment brings me 1,000 job opportunities, I’ll give you a kiss. If it brings 10,000 jobs, I’ll spend the night with you.”
He later apologized for what many took as misogynist remarks, saying that they were meant to be taken in jest. Comments that would ordinarily have damaged a candidate’s prospects might even have helped cultivate Han’s constructed image as a man of the people.
Does his popularity stem from his being a political “maverick?” Will he succeed by following the model of Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), the political novice who won four years ago?
The trouble with comparisons between Han and Ko is that, while they both might seem to be straight-talking and endearingly gaffe-prone, the former is certainly no newbie, nor is he particularly a maverick.
Han is a former KMT legislator, having served a constituency in then-Taipei County from 1993 to 2002, during which time he served as KMT caucus leader. From 2012 to last year, he was the head of Taipei Agricultural Products Marketing Corp, an organization long accused of working in the interests of the KMT. He vied for the party chairmanship last year, but was roundly defeated by KMT Chairman Wu Den-yih (吳敦義).
Where did the idea that he has not been tainted by the corrupting influence of politics come from? How has he suddenly come to be seen as the go-to campaign endorser for the KMT? Why is he so popular in Kaohsiung?
The KMT has not held the Kaohsiung mayorship since Wu left office in December 1998. It has been under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) control for the past two decades and the special municipality is regarded as a green stronghold, deeply suspicious of the KMT.
Presidential Office Secretary-General Chen Chu (陳菊) held the mayorship for 12 years and was elected to her final term in 2014 with 68 percent of the vote, compared with just under 31 percent by her KMT challenger, and left with high approval ratings. That does not speak of an unpopular record in government.
DPP Kaohsiung mayoral candidate Chen Chi-mai (陳其邁) might lack the charisma of Chen Chu or Han, but it is unlikely that voters’ need for a change of face would be enough to give Kaohsiung to the KMT.
The focus on Han’s charisma might allow him to attract votes on that basis alone, without association with the KMT. After two years of unpopular reforms by the DPP government, a vote for Han might be seen as a vote of protest against the central government without necessarily signaling support for the KMT.
Whether he succeeds or not, the groundswell of support for Han would not necessarily be good news for the KMT. He would have two years to prove that his fanciful promises can work before the presidential elections in 2020 — if he performs badly, he would not be a good advertisement for the party.
More fundamentally, his support, despite his relatively outsider status from the KMT elite, augurs an incipient generational change within the party that could see the old guard — including former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Wu — sidelined.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS