The results of the first elections under the new single-member district, two-vote system grant the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) new legislative powers that should unnerve advocates of Taiwanese democracy.
A combination of structural change, poor campaign strategy by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and growing dissatisfaction from voters in nominally safe DPP seats killed the party's hopes to protect the legislature from a two-thirds majority for the KMT.
The remaining two months of President Chen Shui-bian's (
Changes to the electoral system did not benefit the DPP at all, instead proving a boon to the KMT with its superior organizational skills on the ground.
The interesting thing is that the DPP achieved a higher proportion of the district vote (38.17 percent) than in legislative elections four years ago, when it received 35.7 percent of the vote. Its party proportional vote was also marginally higher -- at 36.91 percent. The main reasons for the KMT's landslide victory are instead the distributive nature of the new system and how it forced KMT-aligned local factions to cooperate with one another.
Even so, the DPP's primaries were flawed, leading to an inability to appoint appropriate and able candidates. It failed to take into account changes in the single-member system, such as this: To be elected, a candidate is now required to win a much larger number of votes -- effectively 50 percent in many cases -- rather than a larger minority of votes.
The tradition that the party chairman should lead the campaign and mobilize support meant that DPP candidates could not be heard as individuals in their constituencies. Add to this the fact that DPP candidates do not have the same grassroots networks as KMT candidates, and the result was several capable candidates losing by small margins.
With Chen's resignation as DPP chairman, the party is now set for an ugly post mortem as Premier Chang Chun-hsiung (
After winning the 2000 presidential election, the DPP was doing reasonably well in the face of an increasingly hostile legislature, until things took a turn for the worse with its avoidable 2004 legislative election loss, ensuring that the KMT would have the space and time to recover confidence after the inept leadership of chairman Lien Chan (
The next 70 days will show if Hsieh is able to invoke the much-vaunted "pendulum effect" and save the DPP -- and Taiwan -- from a situation in which a party that privileges power and cynicism over democracy and propriety has complete control of the legislature and the executive.
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
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
RSS