When Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Secretary-General King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) met with the press after returning from a visit to Singapore, he said that if the KMT loses three of the five special municipality elections on Nov. 27, he would consider himself to have failed and take full responsibility. The KMT thinks it will be difficult to win in Tainan and Kaohsiung, but that it holds the upper hand in Taichung. Since it also expects a narrow win in Sinbei City, Taipei City is crucial.
The party is now concentrating its campaign efforts there, thus proving that Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) Taipei mayoral candidate, Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌), was right when he predicted that if he ran for mayor in Taipei, he would lock down most of the KMT’s election resources there, which would benefit the DPP’s candidates in other cities.
Following the scandal surrounding the Taipei International Flora Expo, an opinion poll conducted by a media outlet showed incumbent Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) trailing Su by 2 percentage points. King, however, says internal KMT opinion polls show no difference in support between the two.
Representatives of both parties say that if the DPP trails the KMT by only a small margin in pre-election polls, it could well end up winning the election. Some pan-blue supporters and most pan-green supporters think Su will be the next mayor of Taipei.
This reasoning is borne out by earlier election results, the latest county commissioner and mayoral elections in Yilan county and city being one example. There are two reasons why this is so.
First, most farmers and factory workers support the pan-green camp, while military personnel, civil servants, teachers, the middle class and business circles support the pan-blue camp.
Among pan-green supporters, there are several users per telephone, and some may not even have a chance to pick up when pollsters call. Among pan-blue supporters, however, there are fewer users per telephone, and sometimes, one person has access to several telephones, which means that when pollsters call, the pan-blue camp’s numbers are slightly inflated.
Second, many people have moved from the areas surrounding big cities into the actual cities. The proximity means that they return home frequently, so they keep their household registered in their hometown. An odd phenomenon is that many migrants tend to support the pan-green camp.
When conducting opinion polls in areas surrounding Yilan or other big cities, those who have moved out are not be able to answer the telephone, but on election day, they return home to vote. That is why the final DPP vote is higher than the KMT vote when compared to pre-election opinion polls.
These two factors do not apply in the same way in Taipei City. Although there still are more pan-green users than pan-blue users per telephone, this situation is not as pronounced as in the areas surrounding big cities. In addition, the migrant situation is the opposite of the situation in the surrounding areas.
When conducting an opinion poll, those who have moved into the big city from the surrounding areas might be included in a poll, but they cannot vote because they have their household registration in their old hometown. Clearly, although the difference between the DPP and the KMT might still be smaller in the final vote than in the pre-election polls, the effect will be smaller than in the surrounding areas.
Taipei City has always been a KMT stronghold leaving the DPP far behind. The reason Hau cannot build momentum for the Nov. 27 election is that both the KMT-led national government and Hau’s city administration have disappointed voters.
While many KMT supporters have given a negative assessment of Hau in opinion polls, some will still vote for him on election day. In other words, the view that the DPP will have a chance to win any election where they trail by only a small margin of votes in pre-election polls does not necessarily hold true in Taipei City.
The KMT’s greatest worry is not Hau’s current standing in the opinion polls, but rather whether or not his support will continue to dwindle. The party may have come up with a plan to defeat Su, but while negative campaigning is effective when aimed at an incumbent, it does not have a great effect on challengers from the opposition.
In other words, the KMT’s attempt to go on the attack to defend its position in Taipei will not necessarily be successful. Hau should try to concentrate on his own weak spots instead of directing all his efforts at finding his opponent’s shortcomings.
Taipei residents expect more of the city government than residents in other cities. Hau is unable to present positive political achievements, dares not distance himself from the mistakes committed by his predecessor and cannot disassociate himself from the irregularities that have occurred during his own term in office.
As the DPP reveals irregularities related to the flora expo, the KMT accuses it of attacking the expo itself — in other words, not only do they not appear to understand the need to disassociate the expo from the irregularities, their strategy actively links the two together. The KMT has chosen the wrong path.
Chen Mao-hsiung is a retired National Sun Yat-sen University professor.
Translated by Perry Svensson
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS