The split between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) over the Taipei mayoral election would seem to benefit the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate, Frank Hsieh (謝長廷).
History tells us there is a "dumping effect" with Taiwan's first-past-the-post electoral system if there is more than one competitor from the same camp.
However, history also shows that once there is a split within a camp, the third party is likely to become the sole beneficiary.
When he was the DPP mayoral candidate in 1994, Chen Shui-bian (
Ethnicity and the unification-independence debate used to determine elections for Taipei. Now, however, it comes down to the candidate's character, because Taipei residents are more politically informed and independent-minded.
It is too early to predict the impact PFP candidate James Soong (
In this regard, Hsieh should not take the pan-blue camp's split for granted.
Rather, he must apply his experience as Kaohsiung mayor and present a platform on how he would crack down on the re-emerging sex industry, address deteriorating traffic conditions, stir up the bureaucratic machine and make Taipei a better and safer place in which to live.
Hsieh's campaign strategy of accusing Hau's father Hau Pei-tsun (
Hsieh must demonstrate to the voters why he can do a better job than Hau and even Ma in terms of forging discipline, decisiveness and effectiveness in policy implementation.
Hau's strategy also lacks vision. With strong endorsement from Ma, Hau's campaign has been relatively defensive so far.
But his biggest problem lies in the extent to which he can distinguish himself from Ma.
This is especially important given that Ma has suffered from both a public backlash over the anti-Chen movement initiated by former DPP chairman Shih Ming-teh (施明德) and from Soong's consolidation of the deep-blue vote. To shake off this association, Hau needs to adjust his style and react to public criticism candidly and aggressively.
A campaign is like riding a bike. The more momentum you have, the harder it is to knock you over. But if you're just barely moving or standing still, even the slightest push will make you tumble.
Being aggressive helps to force the agenda onto terrain most favorable to you, and that's usually an advantage for opposition candidates. Whoever can frame the debate and control the setting of the agenda will win the campaign.
After establishing the goals of the campaign and adopting a more aggressive strategy, opposition candidates must set up an agenda to capture voter interest and respect.
They must determine what went wrong with the city government over the last seven years and then punch the message home with force and determination.
This is what Taipei voters want from the year-end contest.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS