A media organization recently published the results of an opinion poll regarding the candidates who are to run for Yilan County commissioner in the local elections on Nov. 26, with only 2 percent of respondents saying that they would vote for the Taiwan People’s Party’s (TPP) candidate. Even among respondents who identified with the TPP, only 2 percent said that they would cast their ballot for the party’s candidate.
In comparison, Yilan County Commissioner Lin Zi-miao (林姿妙) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), who is seeking re-election, garnered the support of 71 percent of respondents who identified with the TPP.
A similar picture emerged for the Taoyuan mayoral race. A separate media poll published at the end of last month showed that only 27 percent of respondents identifying with the TPP said they would vote for the TPP’s candidate, while former premier Simon Chang (張善政), the KMT’s candidate, had the support of 49 percent of those who identified with the TPP.
These results show a number of trends:
First, apart from the TPP’s chairman, Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), no TPP candidates have the support of the majority of respondents who identify with the party.
Second, Ko’s cynicism toward President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) government and her Democratic Progressive Party — not to mention his mockery of both — plus the relative similarity between Ko’s cross-strait policies and those of the KMT have pushed people who identify with the TPP toward strongly rejecting the DPP and other pan-green parties, so that few of them lean toward the green end of the political spectrum.
Third, the TPP only recently came into existence. As such, it has few core values, nor are its members bound by revolutionary sentiments. People who identify with the TPP seem to be extremely pragmatic when it comes to elections — they would rather vote for KMT candidates who have a strong chance of winning than for their own party.
It looks as though TPP candidates in the mayoral and county commissioner elections will not only fail to act as “mother hens” who can consolidate votes for their party, but they will be sidelined by strategic voting among TPP supporters. Such an outcome would reinforce the TPP’s image as a one-person party focused on Ko himself, which could be the start of its downward spiral.
Huang Wei-ping is a former think tank researcher.
Translated by Julian Clegg
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS