The presidential election is to be held concurrently with the legislative elections in January next year. While former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration was fraught with challenges, as he never commanded a legislative majority, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) did not have this problem. In her two terms in office, she has been able to carry out her vision and policies and thereby bear full responsibility for her performance. As a result, the public is not only waiting on tenterhooks to see the results of the presidential election, but also whether the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) will be able to hold on to its majority.
Compared with local elections, legislative elections use a single-district system, meaning that if there are two or more candidates vying for a position, a candidate needs an absolute majority of votes to win the seat.
So far, the DPP’s presidential nominee, Vice President William Lai (賴清德), holds a lead in the polls, but his support ratings still hover at about 30 to 40 percent without topping 50 percent, while support for the DPP varies from city to city. Therefore, the party would have to be inclusive, flexible and creative in its choice of legislative nominees if it hopes to command a majority in the legislature.
The DPP’s nomination committee has organized “a democratic coalition” in New Taipei City by nominating nonparty member candidates, such as former Sunflower movement leader Wu Cheng (吳崢), independent New Taipei City Councilor Tseng Po-yu (曾柏瑜) and former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) member Lee Cheng-hao (李正皓), a proposal that has triggered dissatisfaction within the party.
For pro-Taiwan supporters, the three might not be bad choices as they have respectively played a role in pushing for pro-Taiwanese values.
Wu started in politics with eloquent television interviews regarding his participation in the Sunflower movement in 2014.
The grandchild of a subordinate of former National Revolutionary Army and Republic of China (ROC) Army general Hu Tsung-nan (胡宗南), Wu said that after realizing the truth about the KMT’s deception and empty promises, he dedicated himself to pro-Taiwan movements. In many ways, the pan-green camp already considers Wu an “insider.”
Tseng worked her way up from New Taipei City’s Sindian District (新店) and has always been a strong advocate of pro-Taiwanese values.
As Tseng and Wu belonged to minor parties in the past, they have not had success in the political arena without enough campaign staff to help them make up for their inexperience. If the DPP could provide them with senior personnel and other resources, they should be able to get a leg up on their campaigns for next year’s elections.
The figure who has stirred up the most controversy and rebuke is Lee.
He made his political debut when he launched the “straw boots coalition” (草鞋聯盟) in the KMT and proposed removing the word “Chinese” from the party’s name. He was expelled for criticizing former Kaohsiung mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜).
If an ex-KMT member can enter the race and convert pro-ROC supporters to put their ideology aside and dive into the pro-green camp, it would be an accomplishment.
The DPP’s nomination for “the democratic coalition” has followed open procedures set down by the party. During an interview, Lai has said that nominees for “tight race” districts that have not secured 42.5 percent of votes in the last legislative election would be enlisted.
As Legislator Chiang Yung-chang (江永昌) is no longer running for another term to represent New Taipei City’s Eighth Electoral District (Jhonghe, 中和), the DPP needs a fresh nominee. With a new spot up for grabs, its nomination committee would put forward three names and let the chairman make the final call.
For northern Taiwan, the DPP’s nomination team includes Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍), Tuan Yi-kang (段宜康), Lo Chih-cheng (羅致政) and Wu Ping-jui (吳秉叡). As they are all experienced politicians, well-versed in election campaigns, their proposed candidates have been chosen based on a broad political vision and picked in the hopes that they can garner across-the-board support, especially those running against China’s unification agenda.
Lai would set a good example for his party by adopting established procedures and respecting the nomination committee’s choices.
It takes risks to secure a victory by surprise, so it is understandable that an unconventional slate of nominees would be met with a backlash. However, sometimes with political campaigns, playing it safe is the riskier route. For the moment, the nomination committee’s determination to secure a victory is commendable. If the nominees cannot attract as many votes as the DPP hopes, that would be addressed in a post-election review followed by some soul-searching.
Tommy Lin is director of Wu Fu Eye Clinic and president of the Formosa Republican Association.
Translated by Rita Wang
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