The resignation of Chinese Nationalist (KMT) Secretary-General King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) on Tuesday last week has raised, and will probably continue to raise, concerns in certain pan-blue circles about the possibility of disunity within their ranks. Not only do the circumstances surrounding King’s departure foment speculation, but the controversy surrounding his tenure brings into question the KMT’s ability to keep its house in order.
However, pan-green supporters should also be aware of tensions within the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
PUMA (People United Means Action) is a political action group which opposed the US Democratic Party’s nomination of US President Barack Obama (and supported US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton) prior to the 2008 US presidential election. Although the inner-party threat to the Democratic ticket did not effect the outcome of the race, it did create sores within the Democratic Party, which to this day lurk beneath the surface and may come back to haunt the Democrats in a probably more competitive 2012 election.
Thankfully (for the Democrats, anyway), the majority of the US public was unhappy with then-US president George W. Bush and impressed enough with what Obama had to offer when compared to his opponent, Senator John McCain, to allow Obama to cruise to a relatively comfortable victory in 2008.
At this moment, the situation in Taiwan appears as though it could head in the same general direction. With DPP Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) coming under increasing fire from both inside and outside the DPP and certain DPP “old guard” politicians (former vice president Annette Lu [呂秀蓮] for one) giving the appearance that they may be willing to surrender party unity for the sake of proving a political point, there is a risk that DPP infighting could doom the party next year.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his government may be suffering from low approval ratings and have performed relatively poorly in November’s municipal elections, but the KMT was still able to score victories in three special municipalities against quite strong DPP opponents. Thus, although the KMT’s appeal may be faltering when compared to its 2008 legislative and presidential performances, it still performed quite well in heavily populated and predominantly blue areas.
Second, as the 2004 US presidential election demonstrated, a relatively unpopular president does not make him a dead political stick come election time. Of equal, if not greater, importance is the quality of his opponent. In other words, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry’s lackluster performance as the Democratic Party’s presdiential candidate was of key importance.
Bush’s small margin of victory in 2004 should give us some indication about the importance of a strong opposition candidate: A candidate of Obama’s 2008 caliber could have beaten an unpopular Bush.
The DPP can draw lessons from both the 2004 and 2008 US presidential elections. However, party unity is even more important on a national level for the DPP than it was for Democrats in 2008, as many of the most -populous areas of Taiwan are blue. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that Ma and his party have as yet reached the point of no return popularity-wise, especially after the outcome of last year’s special municipality elections.
Indeed, Ma and the KMT resemble more closely an embattled but not defeated president and party, much like Bush and the Republicans of 2004 than the McCain and Republicans of 2008. At the very least, the DPP cannot underestimate its opponent.
However, I find it very difficult to envisage the DPP, at least as the situation currently stands, being able to choose a candidate that can win the election and satisfy both the younger and older generations in the party.
Even today, on many blogs I’ve seen and in talking to both Taiwanese and foreign observers, there exists a feeling that Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) not only could have performed better in 2008, but “should” be the DPP candidate next year (especially now that Hsieh has, at least ostensibly, ruled himself out of the running).
This should not be misunderstood as saying that Su cannot or should not be nominated. He would make a strong candidate regardless of his running mate, but some of the negative stigma of the “old guard” still colors people’s views of him, just as it does Lu and Hsieh.
The question that should be asked within the DPP is not “who should run?” but “who can win?” Su’s strong, but unconvincing, performance in Taipei in November, events such as the election eve shooting notwithstanding, may indicate that he might not be able to carry blue (or bluer) areas.
A candidate like Su Chia-chuan (蘇嘉全), however, who exceeded many people’s expectations in Taichung, a predominantly blue area, might stand a better chance. Young, demonstrably energetic and with a professional yet down to earth persona, Su Chia-chuan, as either a presidential or vice presidential candidate, would make a strong contender.
Not only does he seem a harder political target to hit than someone older and more established, but he is also, according to many females I’ve discussed Taiwanese politics with, relatively easy on the eyes. Readers may laugh, but the idea that Ma the candidate was handsome, young — and did I mention handsome? — caught the attention of many young female voters in 2008. Although physical appearance quite obviously says very little about an individual’s political skills and leadership abilities, it quite obviously says volumes to — shall we say “certain” — voters.
Regardless of what “certain” voters might think, a younger, more energetic, and down-to-earth candidate would certainly present Ma and the KMT with a formidable challenge.
However, I fear that a nomination of Su Chia-chuan to either post would be unacceptable to the older generation of DPP party stalwarts, if for no other reason than they may believe someone else — perhaps one of them — “should” run, even though most have little chance of winning.
How the DPP deals with this dilemma may very well decide what future historians write about the current period.
Nathan Novak studies China and the Asia-Pacific region with a particular focus on cross-strait relations at National Sun Yat-sen University.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS