Political science professor Yang Tai-shuenn (楊泰順), who in the 1990s stood as a New Party candidate for the Taiwan Provincial Council and was duly elected, published an article on Nov. 27, the day after the local government elections, titled: “The importance of the nine-in-one elections is exaggerated.”
“The election results are not useful for forecasting the outcome of the presidential and legislative elections in two years’ time,” Yang said. “Policy decisions in Taiwan are highly concentrated at the central government level, and, given that the legislature is in no position to hinder government policies, even though the governing party has lost the nine-in-one local elections, it will not be hard for it, within the next two years, to create enough of a favorable environment to turn the situation around. The 2018 nine-in-one elections are a case in point.”
Frankly, this is common knowledge. People who care about politics and remember a little history all understand this point, and also know that Taiwanese tend to vote differently in local and central government elections.
However, on seeing the reactions of media commentators of various political leanings the day after the elections, either celebrating success or reflecting on failure, and even pointing the finger at whomever they thought was to blame, I kept wondering whether they were taking it too far.
For example, the United Daily News, which published Yang’s article, also published a mini-editorial titled: “The anti-China card has failed this time.”
Was this just a matter of self-congratulation, or more a case of underestimating the intelligence of the paper’s readers?
Besides, figures announced by the Central Election Commission showed that the voter turnout was 59.96 percent in the elections for municipal mayors and 64.2 percent in the elections for mayors and county commissioners, respectively 6.25 and 4.67 percent lower than the previous local elections in 2018.
This adds up to quite a stunning difference of more than 1 million voters, not to mention that about 40 percent of voters did not vote at all. Set against the 74.9 percent turnout in the 2020 presidential election, it is even more incomparable.
In view of all this, when so-called experts try to analyze public opinion, or when supporters of the “pan-green” Taiwan-centric parties are sighing and sobbing, they should at least look at the numbers first, rather than jumping to conclusions.
Kang Yu-tsai is an adjunct professor.
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 the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
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
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS