Taiwan has a hard-won democracy, but that does not automatically mean it will last. Citizens must constantly vet those seeking office. Do they walk the walk as well as talk the talk? Perhaps more importantly, what exactly are they talking about?
The past provides cautionary examples. A prime one is chameleon former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Hsu Hsin-liang (許信良). In the 1970s, he served in the Taiwan Provincial Assembly for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After the Jhongli Incident, he ran as an independent and won the Taoyuan County commissioner seat only to be impeached for “anti-government activity.”
A decade of self-imposed exile and fundraising in the US followed before he would return, be pardoned and serve as chairman of the newly formed DPP.
Hsu proved to be the kind of person who needs to be at the front of the parade no matter who the procession is for.
In the following years, he so frequently switched sides — aligning with the DPP, the KMT, the New Party and even running as an independent — that people would ask: “Who is he with this year?”
Totally different has been former KMT legislative speaker and presidential candidate Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱).
She served the party well and loyally over the years. However, so strong was her pro-China unification talk that even the KMT felt compelled to pull her from the 2016 presidential race and replace her with KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) in his first stint as party chairman.
Then there is former Kaohsiung mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜). Elected in 2018 on the promise of making everyone rich again, he quickly decided that he could run for president using the same message.
He lost and, to the credit of the citizens of Kaohsiung, suffered the ignominy of losing in a recall by more votes than he had received in his original mayoral run.
Against that historical backdrop, the controversies in the upcoming nine-in-one elections add grist for the mill.
In Taipei, KMT mayoral candidate Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) appears to have been hoisted on his own petard.
He touted his expertise in international business and law only to have the opposition point out that he was suspended from practicing law three times and that the “international company” he had worked for was a small firm that dealt with China.
The main spotlight shines on the Taiwan People’s Party’s (TPP) candidate for Hsinchu mayor, Ann Kao (高虹安). Her background reads as: “What could go wrong if a life of privilege is given control of the gravy train?”
Kao is a TPP legislator-at-large, which means she got the position as a reward and not through an election. So what did she do to gain that privilege?
When working on her doctorate at the University of Cincinnati, she received financial aid from the Institute for Information Industry, which expected her to work for it when she finished.
No sooner did she complete the degree than she met with Hon Hai Precision Industry founder Terry Gou (郭台銘) and took a job at his company. This forced the institute to bring up related issues and say that she plagiarized her dissertation from work done within the non-governmental organization.
As a legislator, Kao hired her reported boyfriend Lee Chung-ting (李忠庭) for a staff position where he answers her personal phone. Already drawing a hefty salary at another position, Lee apparently uses his double-dipping for Kao’s personal benefit.
There is something disconcerting in that anyone wishing to reach the legislator must go through her boyfriend. Would he still answer her phone if she became mayor of Hsinchu?
Whistle-blowers have also reported that Lee is not the only one providing “kickbacks.” Kao’s staff are reportedly expected to donate a percentage of their salaries to her campaign fund.
Like a TV drama, the election plot thickened when Broadcasting Corp of China chairman Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康) suggested that TPP supporters in Taipei vote for Chiang, while KMT supporters in Hsinchu vote for Kao.
Jaw has his own interesting background. He helped form the New Party as it broke from the KMT in the 1990s. Does he now want to come in from the cold and seek redemption with the KMT or does he just want to keep his hand in the game?
These are challenges that voters face as they separate the wheat from the chaff in the upcoming elections and ask: Do candidates walk the walk as well as talk the talk?
There is a final question they might ask each candidate: “Have you signed the pledge to never surrender the nation to China?”
I do not think Chiang’s and Kao’s names would be signatories on that list.
Jerome Keating is a writer based in Taipei.
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