In a surprising move, expressing regret for internal pressure from the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) top leaders, incumbent Taipei County Commissioner Chou Hsi-wei (周錫瑋) announced his withdrawal from the year-end mayoral election for Sinbei City (新北市) and endorsed the candidate favored by the KMT, incumbent Vice Premier Eric Chu (朱立倫).
Chou’s early withdrawal was clearly a result of political maneuvering by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who doubles as KMT chairman, and KMT Secretary-General King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) over the Lunar New Year, when rumors filled the local media that Chou would be replaced by Chu in exchange for a higher position in the Presidential Office or the Executive Yuan.
When Chou was notified that he was way behind Chu in the KMT’s poll for the candidacy of Sinbei City to face potential competitors from the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), particularly former premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌), he had no choice but to quit earlier than expected.
The whole drama staged by Ma is aimed primarily at preventing Su from winning Taipei County, given that the constituency comprises the largest number of voters in the country. Therefore, Ma and his Cabinet decided first to upgrade Taipei County to the municipal level last year and postpone the Taipei County commissioner election for another year, so Su would not have a chance to run.
Because of Chou’s continued poor governance and unpopularity, Ma initiated another step by placing Chu in the upgraded Sinbei City in the hopes of defeating Su and continuing the KMT’s governance.
Now the ball seems to be in Su’s court. According to most public polls, including ones conducted by the Chinese-language China Times and United Daily News, Su is leading Chu in Sinbei City by a small margin.
Nevertheless, there are also questions within the DPP on whether Su should run in Sinbei City or in Taipei City against KMT Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌).
Some argue that if Su ran for either of the positions and won, he would be trapped in Taipei and lose the opportunity to run for president in 2012. There is the possibility Chu will ask Su to pledge that he won’t run for the presidential election in 2012 if he chooses to run in the December election. Others contend that if Su did not run in December, he would be accused of being too selfish and only have his eyes on 2012.
How should Su untie this political knot? Su and the DPP need to come up with “a tale of two cities.” Given that Su and DPP Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) are the two leading candidates from the pan-green camp who have a chance of beating Chu and Hau, both should immediately leverage their popularity to strengthen internal unity after tomorrow’s legislative by-election.
The DPP has suffered from a huge lack of internal unity following the loss of the last presidential election. It took almost a year for the opposition to recover, with a series of local campaign victories. Tsai’s leadership is further consolidated and Su’s national popularity increased by the KMT’s political maneuvering in the Taipei County drama.
The elections in Taipei and Sinbei are not about unification or independence, nor do they involve ethnic division. They are more about whether the DPP candidates can offer better policies and outperform Hau and Chu.
Replacing Chou with Chu gives the DPP an opportunity to accuse the KMT commissioner of failing to perform adequately. Whether or not Su is running for his old hometown, he can refresh the voters’ memory of the DPP’s good governance by helping Tsai and others.
In Taipei City, Hau has been cleaning up his predecessor Ma’s mess on troubles such as the Maokong Gondola and the Wen-Hu MRT line. The DPP’s appeal for change in Taipei City can be a good starting point after the KMT’s nearly 12 years of governance.
The unique character of Taipei voters provides the DPP with an opportunity to sell its superior track record. Either Su or Tsai can give it a try.
It was the best of times for the DPP to win not only three out of five cities in the year-end special municipality elections but also possibly the presidential election in 2012.
It could also be the worst of times. The key lies in whether party leaders can put aside personal rivalry and selfishness and engage in candid and constructive dialogue on how to come up with the best candidates.
Liu Shih-chung is a senior research fellow at the Taipei-based Taiwan Brain Trust.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS