In an extremely tight race in Kaohsiung, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Chen Chu (陳菊) won her mayoral bid over Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) mayoral candidate Huang Chun-ying (黃俊英) by a razor-thin margin of 1,114 votes.
The Central Election Commission (CEC) said that Chen garnered 379,417 votes, while Huang obtained 378,303.
As the final votes were still being counted, the vote difference between Chen and Huang was getting smaller and smaller. Nevertheless, Huang still lost to Chen and placed second.
But given the small margin of votes by which Chen won the election, Huang will probably demand a vote recount and today he could very well initiate such a lawsuit to nullify the elections.
Kaohsiung and most of the southern cities are traditional pan-green strongholds; therefore, the DPP technically would be expected to capture more than enough votes to seize control of the city.
But given the recent scandals plaguing the first family and the resulting mood among DPP members, the DPP had not been able to hold a strong lead until about a week prior to the elections.
When looking at the issues that influenced voters in the Kaohsiung election, the key factors that led to a DPP victory are two-fold:
First, clashes in downtown Kaohsiung -- where Chen Chun-sheng (陳春生), convener of a "depose Chen" campaign office in the city, held a gathering aimed at building momentum for the anti-presidential campaign -- served to arouse a fierce reaction from DPP supporters and helped consolidate the cohesion of the DPP.
Second, Lin I-hsiung's (林義雄) appearance on the stage at a campaign event in support of Chen also influenced pan-blue supporters' voting decisions.
Furthermore, a higher voter turnout of 67.93 percent, though lower than the turnout of 71.4 percent in the previous election, could also have influenced the election results in Kaohsiung since the higher the voter turnout, the more likely Chen was to be elected.
Other elements include previous DPP administrative achievements, such as the restoration of the Love River and other efforts to revive the arts and the cultural environment.
As to the political meaning of the election for next year's legislative elections under the new "single-member district, two-vote system," it is likely that the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) and the People First Party will evaporate and the future political landscape will become purely a DPP-KMT divide.
Also, if former President Lee Teng-hui (
In fact, standing at opposite ends of the spectrum of either supporting Taiwanese independence or advocating unification does not benefit Taiwan for the moment.
Whether Lee will be able to play an influential role in future politics will depend on what approaches he will choose to develop a consciousness for Taiwanese.
Also, the media should be blamed for the current political unrest.
"The media is a seed of poison planted by Taiwan" is a saying that reminds us not to be carried away by reporting which presents the political situation like a soap opera and causes people to become disillusioned.
It is ironic that pan-blue supporters do not use the same standard to judge President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) misuse of "state affairs funds" to examine irregularities in Taipei Mayor and KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's (
There is clearly a double standard at work here. If the pan-blue supporters can have leniency in their hearts, then I believe that Taiwanese politics will move in a healthy and positive direction.
Lee Chung-pan is a professor in the Department of Marine Environment and Engineering at National Sun Yat-sen University.
Compiled by Lin Ya-ti
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS