It would not be surprising if the public feels as if the Taipei mayoral campaign has been going on forever.
First there was the raucous and prolonged Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) primary, which resulted in the selection of an independent candidate backed by the pan-green camp’s Ko Wen-je (柯文哲). However, the nine-in-one elections to be held on Nov. 29 are still four months away.
Sadly, the campaign has not seen either of the two front-running candidates, Ko and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Sean Lien (連勝文), engage in any substantive discussions on issues affecting the city.
Sometimes they have alluded to the issue of public housing and attacked each other’s platforms.
However, unfortunately, public discussion has also included topics such as the Battle of Stalingrad, to which Lien compared his campaign, or Ko’s recruitment of a pro-unification academic, Yao Li-ming (姚立明), to be his campaign manager.
Ko appears to enjoy a comfortable advantage over Lien, according to most public opinion polls, boosting the opposition’s hope that the KMT’s 16-year control of the capital might come to an end.
In the final analysis, either Ko or Lien is set to be elected as Taipei mayor — the independent candidates, former DPP lawmaker Shen Fu-hsiung (沈富雄) and screenwriter Neil Peng (馮光遠), do not stand a chance — and the result could have profound implications.
If Ko won, it would likely end the debate about whether there are “independent” voters in Taiwan, in particular in Taipei, where the fiercest struggle between the pan-blues and the pan-greens has been seen.
As the pan-green camp has never won a head-to-head battle against the KMT in the Taipei mayoral election, conventional wisdom has it that even if the KMT nominated a stone as its candidate, the stone would be elected mayor.
A win for Ko would be a declaration that the current political ideology of the two major parties was no longer valid. It would signify the emergence of an independently thinking civil society dominated by the middle class and intellectuals, which would be the beginning of a new age, and a boost for politicians who believe that they can find a way to serve the public without the support of a political party.
Despite Ko leading the race by as much as 20 percentage points according to some surveys, a significant percentage of pan-green supporters believe that if the Lien camp successfully turns the campaign into the traditional “blue versus green” battle, the so-called independent voters could disappear and the result would be a win for the KMT.
Ko’s victory would also suggest that the influence of political parties could decrease over time. At the very least, it would show voters no longer accepted everything political parties told them. The same phenomenon could be observed during the Sunflower movement, as the majority of the participants in the movement trusted neither the KMT nor the DPP.
However, a win for Lien would mean that the pan-blue camp’s footprint in the city was so hard to erase that pan-blue voters would not accept an independent with a pro-independence and pro-DPP background even if they realize that the KMT’s 16-year governance has failed to produce satisfying results. A KMT win, regardless of how small the margin was, would likely be interpreted as a win for the conventional wisdom about Taipei City’s political landscape.
A Lien victory could mean that Ko’s campaign strategy, which highlights Lien’s “princeling” status and the KMT’s feudal politics, was a failure and most voters could not care less about feudalism.
That is why the results of the Taipei mayoral election will be symbolic and unique, even though it is only one of 22 constituencies where mayoral and commissioner positions are up for grabs. At stake is more than the well-being of Taipei residents after Nov. 29, but also the destiny of “a new politics” that could emerge in the following decade.
Former US president Jimmy Carter’s legacy regarding Taiwan is a complex tapestry woven with decisions that, while controversial, were instrumental in shaping the nation’s path and its enduring relationship with the US. As the world reflects on Carter’s life and his recent passing at the age of 100, his presidency marked a transformative era in Taiwan-US-China relations, particularly through the landmark decision in 1978 to formally recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the sole legal government of China, effectively derecognizing the Republic of China (ROC) based in Taiwan. That decision continues to influence geopolitical dynamics and Taiwan’s unique
Having enjoyed contributing regular essays to the Liberty Times and Taipei Times now for several years, I feel it is time to pull back. As some of my readers know, I have enjoyed a decades-long relationship with Taiwan. My most recent visit was just a few months ago, when I was invited to deliver a keynote speech at a major conference in Taipei. Unfortunately, my trip intersected with Double Ten celebrations, so I missed the opportunity to call on friends in government, as well as colleagues in the new AIT building, that replaced the old Xin-yi Road complex. I have
On New Year’s Day, it is customary to reflect on what the coming year might bring and how the past has brought about the current juncture. Just as Taiwan is preparing itself for what US president-elect Donald Trump’s second term would mean for its economy, national security and the cross-strait “status quo” this year, the passing of former US president Jimmy Carter on Monday at the age of 100 brought back painful memories of his 1978 decision to stop recognizing the Republic of China as the seat of China in favor of the People’s Republic of China. It is an
After forcing through a slew of controversial amendments, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on Tuesday last week rejected all seven Constiutional Court candidates nominated by President William Lai (賴清德), an event that triggered public concerns that it could lead to an unprecedented constitutional crisis and jeopardize Taiwan’s democracy. The opposition parties on Dec. 20 forced through three controversial amendments to the Public Officials Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法), the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) and the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (憲法訴訟法). The amendment to tighten the recall process has been