Lessons from the elections
Following Saturday’s presidential and legislative elections, even if Taiwan-centric voters anticipated that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) might not win more than half the seats in the Legislative Yuan, they might still find it hard to accept this result. Disappointing as it is, this outcome raises some points for reflection.
The first theory about the DPP’s loss of seats is the factor of divided votes. In the 2020 legislative election, I thought the reason DPP candidates failed to be elected in legislative constituencies such as Songshan-Xinyi (松山-信義) in Taipei and New Taipei City’s Constituency 1, which includes Tamsui (淡水) and other districts, was that candidates standing for the New Power Party or the Taiwan People’s Party split the pan-green vote.
However, I changed my mind about this following the 2022 local government elections. Taking last weekend’s election in Taipei’s Nankang-Neihu (南港-內湖) constituency and the views of some of my Facebook friends who live there as an example, some of them half a year ago and some a month or two ago said they would cast all three of their ballots for the DPP even if they had negative opinions about the constituency’s DPP Legislator Kao Chia-yu (高嘉瑜).
On the other hand, some people insisted on not voting for Kao and shifted their support to the Taiwan Statebuilding Party candidate, Wu Hsin-tai (吳欣岱). After the votes were counted, about half of my friends blamed Wu for splitting the vote and said that those who did not vote for Kao were responsible for her loss to her Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) rival, Lee Yen-hsiu (李彥秀). Although Wu’s and Kao’s votes came from a similar support base, it would be wrong to assume that each vote for Wu equals one fewer vote for Kao.
The second question to ponder is whether the DPP should allow its serving legislators to stand as candidates in the 2026 local government elections. In the past, the DPP has criticized KMT politicians such as former legislators Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) and Lin Yi-hua (林奕華), now mayor and deputy mayor of Taipei respectively, former Taipei City Councilor Lo Chih-chiang (羅智強) and New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) for abandoning their jobs to stand for election or take up other government appointments. Considering the high standards that voters expect of the DPP, the party’s legislators would probably suffer an even stronger boomerang effect if they made similar moves. It would be wise to think about this now.
A third point is that the DPP should not underestimate KMT Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕). Lu’s second term in office ends in 2026, so if she stands as the “non-green” camp’s candidate in the 2028 presidential election, she would not face accusations of being a “runaway mayor.” Neither could anyone say things like “the deep blues will not support her” or that she is “blue in her skin, but green in her bones,” as have been bandied about this past year. As the biggest party in the Taiwan-centric camp, how would the DPP handle such a challenge?
The fourth and final conundrum is what to do about new media. When it comes to TikTok and Internet celebrities, some people around my age like to joke that when your kids turn to TikTok, you have raised them for nothing. Unfortunately, TikTok watchers have the same right to vote as you and me. No matter whether you find TikTok users infuriating or amusing, you cannot change this reality. Hopefully after Vice President William Lai (賴清德) is inaugurated in May, his administration will think hard about how to tackle the challenge of new media.
Chen Ching-hsiang
Taipei
A Taiwan State of the Union
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has proposed having a State of the Union address by the Taiwanese president. In the US, the State of the Union has proven to be a powerful instrument to outline and propose policy, indicate conditions the nation is facing, economic ailments, the administration’s improvement and evolution and the president’s priorities and domestic and international legislative agenda.
The US address satisfies constitutional requirements, and such an addition to Taiwan’s constitution would enrich the nation and supplement its transnational relations. The statement of essential information and principles looking to the future could bring a new state of confidence and clarity on where Taiwan stands in the world. The president could provide the public with information on the actual state of the nation and endorse any procedures considered “necessary and expedient” to the country’s growth and expansion. This would be a step forward, and it is a bit confusing that Taiwan has not adopted this standard practice, although the president’s New Year address might in some respects stand in.
Major State of the Union addresses in the US include former US president Lyndon Johnson’s declaration of an “unconditional war on poverty” in 1965 and former US president Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” speech in 1941. Many other addresses have underscored important US developments and advances in politics and society. During the address, all members of the US Congress are present, as well as the executive cabinet and the judiciary, bringing all branches of US government together. Foreign dignitaries are invited, as well as notable domestic leaders and innovators. Such an agglomeration hearing and participating in such a dialogue brings a real sense of national unity. US President Joe Biden said in his State of the Union address last year: “We must see each other not as enemies, but as fellow Americans,” embracing this sense of unity.
When Biden continued by saying: “We are… the only nation in the world built on an idea,” we might well see Taiwan in the same light.
All of this could benefit Taiwan’s status and feelings of inclusion, domestically and internationally. Hopefully, we could see a Taiwanese president give such a speech soon.
David Pendery
Taipei
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
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) said that he expects this year to be a year of “peace.” However, this is ironic given the actions of some KMT legislators and politicians. To push forward several amendments, they went against the principles of legislation such as substantive deliberation, and even tried to remove obstacles with violence during the third readings of the bills. Chu says that the KMT represents the public interest, accusing President William Lai (賴清德) and the Democratic Progressive Party of fighting against the opposition. After pushing through the amendments, the KMT caucus demanded that Legislative Speaker
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
Beijing’s approval of a controversial mega-dam in the lower reaches of the Yarlung Tsangpo River — which flows from Tibet — has ignited widespread debate over its strategic and environmental implications. The project exacerbates the complexities of India-China relations, and underscores Beijing’s push for hydropower dominance and potential weaponization of water against India. India and China are caught in a protracted territorial dispute along the Line of Actual Control. The approval of a dam on a transboundary river adds another layer to an already strained bilateral relationship, making dialogue and trust-building even more challenging, especially given that the two Asian
RSS