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.
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
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS