The introduction of new electoral rules for the upcoming legislative election have different implications for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
The KMT seems to be more confident about the changes for two reasons. The new electoral system -- combining single-member districts with the allocation of at-large seats to parties proportional to the number of votes they receive -- favors the KMT because of its stronger organizational framework and local connections. KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou's (
The party's complacency is demonstrated by KMT headquarters' decision to call on voters to boycott its proposed referendum on anti-corruption to be held with the legislative elections. Its aim now is not just to become the majority force in the next legislature, but to secure an absolute majority.
The DPP, on the other hand, has struggled in the campaign because of both external and internal constraints. The lack of an impressive record in the past seven-and-a-half years is the key reason why support has been steadily dropping. Despite DPP Chairman and President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) nationwide campaigning, the number of seats the DPP wins could be less than 45 out of a total of 113.
What's even worse is the potential conflict within the DPP concerning the role of presidential candidate Frank Hsieh(謝長廷), who has been criticized by some of his comrades for not campaigning aggressively enough for his party's candidates.
Hsieh's camp has argued that his actions merely reflected a division of labor between Chen, Hsieh and other DPP big shots.
Whether the claims are true or not, Hsieh cannot turn his back on the DPP's possible losses in the legislative elections. Despite his insistence on conducting his own campaign, he should treat the legislative polls as closely associated with the presidential election in March.
If the DPP suffers a major loss, Hsieh will have to rebuild party morale by appealing to the approximately 40 percent of voters who support the pan-green camp. It would be wishful thinking to believe the voters will automatically split their ballots in both legislative and presidential elections and embrace the concept of a "divided government."
Not to mention that the KMT would certainly take advantage of a victory in the legislative elections by calling for a "unified government" to end the years of executive-legislative standoff.
If this were the case, Hsieh would need strong support from DPP voters while at the same time soliciting more ballots from middle-of-the-road voters.
The DPP would have no choice but to reinforce its campaign on protecting Taiwan's sovereignty by emphasizing its referendum to use the name Taiwan in applying to join the UN. President Chen and other leaders would hope to play the referendum card to consolidate the DPP's central power while Hsieh tried to strike a balance between playing to the DPP center and attracting moderate voters.
Hsieh is well-known as a master of political taichi and a key advocate of the principles of "reconciliation and coexistence." He will probably try to highlight the differences between his and Ma's personality and leadership skills as his major campaign strategy after the legislative polls, but is that enough?
The irony is: Hsieh still needs support from his own party and there is no way for him to separate himself from Chen.
Unless Hsieh can come up with a broader and more dominant agenda than the referendum, he will have to work closely with the DPP.
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