In state elections in the US on Nov. 3, the Democratic Party lost out. These were the first elections since US President Barack Obama took office, but many saw them as a local affair, not as a mid-term test for Obama. Rather than blaming Obama, the Democratic Party swallowed the bitter pill. On Saturday it was Taiwan’s turn to hold local elections. Although the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) won the top posts in 12 out of 17 cities and counties, losing only Yilan and Hualien counties among those seats it had held, public opinion sees the results as a defeat for the KMT and blames President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), the KMT chairman, for the losses.
Why such a difference between the US and Taiwan? Obama was not responsible for campaigning for local candidates. Ma, on the other hand, made every effort to do so, rushing about the country. He campaigned 11 times in Yilan County alone, where he stood on the stage with the KMT candidate in two different places on the eve of the vote. For all his efforts, however, the KMT still lost Yilan. It is no surprise, therefore, that people should hold Ma responsible for the loss.
The KMT lost control of two counties, but only one went to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). More significantly, the KMT’s share of the vote fell steeply, from about 60 percent in last year’s presidential election to 47.88 percent, while the DPP’s share grew from 41.55 percent to 45.32. While Ma’s aura is fading, the DPP is beginning to recover from the corruption charges against former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁).
Ma told reporters he thought it was the “general environment” that resulted in a lower-than-expected voter turnout and seats won for the KMT. He did not shoulder any of the responsibility for the results. Nor did he promise a reshuffle in the party, saying only that “everything” would be discussed in the post-election analysis. While Ma apparently feels he can’t be blamed because the party’s candidates were finalized by his predecessor as party chairman, Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄), in practice Ma has been in charge of all party affairs since July. It should be difficult for him to dodge responsibility in connection to both the nominations and campaigning.
In addition, the government’s ineptitude can hardly be blamed on Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), who has been in office for just over two months. In particular, given the popularity of Ma’s 6-3-3 campaign promise last year and the stark contrast between it and the current situation, voters did not care that Saturday’s polls were not a presidential election — they used the chance to show their dissatisfaction.
Ma was perfectly right in saying voters had been magnanimous — how else could one explain their rewarding government inability and dictatorial policymaking by handing the KMT 12 county commissioner and mayoral seats? Yet Saturday’s results were a warning.
If the government doesn’t pay heed to the public’s concerns about US beef, the economic cooperation and framework agreement with China, recognition of Chinese academic credentials, poor government performance and anger over vote-buying, then Ma and the KMT will pay a heavy price in next year’s special municipality and legislative elections.
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama. This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent