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.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS