The formation of a “blue-white” alliance between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) for next year’s elections had been delayed for months. Yet the two parties have once again dragged the game into overtime.
After bickering over which methods to use, the two parties on Wednesday finally agreed to a joint presidential ticket using public and internal polling to decide who among New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) of the KMT and TPP Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) would be the presidential candidate and who would be their running mate. The result was to be announced yesterday.
A closed-door meeting attended by Ko, Hou, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) and former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who was acting as a witness, was held on Wednesday. The four men signed a document agreeing to six points. Point three stated that if Hou or Ko won by more than the statistical margin of error, they would get one point, but if the result was within the margin of error, the Hou-led ticket would gain one point. The details of the agreement were hazy, but many people believed that it was more favorable toward Hou. The TPP and Ko immediately faced criticism from supporters asking why Ko had conceded to “unfair” terms.
The two parties yesterday surprised the public by announcing that further negotiations were needed, as they had failed to agree on how the polls should be interpreted — having different understandings of what “statistical margin of error” meant.
The KMT said that the difference in support for a Hou-led ticket and a Ko-led ticket was within the margin of error for five polls, so the Hou-led ticket won five points from six polls, while the TPP said that it has agreed to a margin of error of 3 percent, which it interpreted as plus or minus 1.5 percentage points, so the Ko-led ticket had won three points from six polls, resulting in a draw.
The outcome of the alliances’ joint ticket is again up in the air, and the deadline for candidates to register with the election commission is Friday. Voters should take a hard look at the absurdity of the “blue-white” alliance and re-evaluate its ability to govern.
Ko’s remarks over the past few days should serve as a warning to his supporters regarding the TPP’s one-person decisionmaking mechanism and Ko’s suitability as a leader. Ko once said the things he hates the most are “mosquitoes, cockroaches and the KMT.” He also said the TPP aims to surpass the “green-blue” political divide and create a new political culture, and called for an “open and transparent” democratic government. He betrayed the TPP and his supporters by signing the agreement on Wednesday.
After signing the agreement during a closed-door meeting, contrary to Ko’s constant call for transparency, he admitted that he had overruled a collective decision made by his aides, but said he was “ambushed” by the KMT, and that the TPP would monitor the KMT’s governance if a Hou-led ticket won the election. That is strange, as he is proposing that the vice president monitor the president.
Ko even said he would attend further negotiations with a team of party members, as he is “easily duped” when alone.
Just three days after the KMT and the TPP hailed the agreement as a “historical moment,” the poll result announcement proved their alliance to be just as ambiguous as the so-called “1992 consensus” — a term former Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) in 2006 admitted making up in 2000, referring to a tacit understanding between the KMT and the Chinese government that both sides of the Strait acknowledge there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “China” means.
The TPP and KMT only have an understanding on “removing the Democratic Progressive Party from power,” but seem to have their own interpretations as to what that means.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
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
RSS