Although President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has access to ample party and government resources allowing him to issue both threats and promises, he stumbled in Saturday’s legislative by-elections. This will have an impact on the year-end special municipality elections, and it also shows that Ma no longer has the ability to arouse enthusiasm among pan-blue supporters — voter turnout on Saturday was less than 40 percent — who no longer feel that supporting Ma gives them a sense of mission.
Some voters have said they “feel nothing.” This has created an atmosphere in which pan-blue supporters feel they must abandon Ma to save the pan-blue camp, and some are beginning to talk about supporting Taichung Mayor Jason Hu (胡志強).
When Ma won the presidential election on the back of 7.65 million votes, his campaign team proclaimed: “Ma does not rely on the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the party relies on Ma.” They implied KMT officials and party workers were not worth much and were in great need of “reform and renewal.”
For example, when KMT Secretary-General King Pu-tsung (金浦聰) brought in Ryan Wu (吳睿穎) to “reform” the personnel administration, he just fumbled in the dark and even made a big affair of recalling many heads of county and city branches to party headquarters where they were punished for not working hard enough during the elections.
Outspoken KMT Legislator Lo Shu-lei (羅淑蕾) said King thought “he had dug up treasure [in Wu], but he really only dug up a pile of shit.”
The problem is that after Ma and King teamed up and started playing up reform, their calls seemed to lack concrete content or direction. They have also failed to return the party’s stolen assets. Everything remained words on paper, which made the call for reform seem more like a slogan and an excuse for a purge.
In their attempts at manipulating local elections, party branches simply used Ma’s people. Some candidates were “parachuted” in while others were local candidates, and this was a cause of conflict that stirred up much ill feeling and instilled a sense of crisis in powerful local faction leaders because they were part of Ma and King’s “reform” target. Small wonder that there wasn’t much unity.
Ma’s inability to govern and his lackluster results have made life difficult for the public. Unemployment has gone up, civic order is deteriorating and the government is incapable of satisfying voters’ demands. The government’s pro-China policies lack vision, and this is frequently the reason the public calls for change.
The lack of direction has meant that there has been no structure to reforms. The reorganization of the Presidential Office, the Cabinet and the party has turned these institutions into a campaign team, only with some temporary make-up applied. The election organization is the only part that has been given some thorough thought, and there is a lack of comprehensive political considerations. Consideration is given only to the interests of big business and those whose business involves both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
This does not go unnoticed by voters, so when there is an election, they of course want to teach the government a lesson so that it understands what the public want, which is placing Taiwan first.
In short, the biggest defeat for Ma’s oligarchical rule is that the KMT no longer knows for whom or what it is fighting, while those who are afraid of becoming completely dominated by China no longer know where Taiwan’s future lies. It is not very strange that we are now hearing cries of “We love the emperor, but we love Rome more” from within the KMT.
Lu I-ming is a former publisher and president of the Taiwan Shin Sheng Daily News.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Following the BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, last month, media outlets circulated familiar narratives about Russia and China’s plans to dethrone the US dollar and build a BRICS-led global order. Each summit brings renewed buzz about a BRICS cross-border payment system designed to replace the SWIFT payment system, allowing members to trade without using US dollars. Articles often highlight the appeal of this concept to BRICS members — bypassing sanctions, reducing US dollar dependence and escaping US influence. They say that, if widely adopted, the US dollar could lose its global currency status. However, none of these articles provide
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
US president-elect Donald Trump earlier this year accused Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) of “stealing” the US chip business. He did so to have a favorable bargaining chip in negotiations with Taiwan. During his first term from 2017 to 2021, Trump demanded that European allies increase their military budgets — especially Germany, where US troops are stationed — and that Japan and South Korea share more of the costs for stationing US troops in their countries. He demanded that rich countries not simply enjoy the “protection” the US has provided since the end of World War II, while being stingy with