Did Tsai need to resign DPP leadership and will she be back?

Politics Taiwan Politics
1

Tsai got 45% in a three horse race against the incumbent (OK, that means Blues got 55%). I think the odds were always against her. Apart from anything else, there are probably some voters who wouldn’t vote for a woman (more than those who would vote for her because she is a woman). I didn’t see much of the campaign so I don’t really know, but she looked reasonably impressive to me. Certainly no disgrace.

Which means, do losers always resign? Not always. In Taiwan, Lian Chan didn’t resign/leave the stage in 2000 and took over a year to go after 2004.

Elsewhere, it’s not uncommon for American contenders to run more than once for the nomination, at least (not sure about if they get beaten in the actual election - please enlighten me). In the UK, it depends on the circumstances. In 1983, Michael Foot got a thumping, was seen as old and a loser. He was replaced by Kinnock with a long term project to reform the Labour Party, so when he made progress but still lost in 1987, he got another chance in 1992, after which he resigned. William Hague lost for the Conservatives in 2001 and went not because he lost but because he lost quite badly and was perceived as weird (the Conservative Party is more ruthless than the Labour Party). Michael Howard was always a stand in (also perceived as a bit weird), to be replaced by a new generation after 2005. Gordon Brown had been on the scene for 20 years, lost badly (in some senses) and was seen as weird.

Having said all that, leading the party and running for President seem to be more fluid in Taiwan. Perhaps it would not be surprising to see Tsai again in 4 years.

2

Tsai Ing Wen stepped down right after her defeat. Any true leader would not give up. Why not stay as DPP leader and then keep going for the 2016 elections? Stepping down just like that just shows Tsai was just a push over. One loss and she’s gone.

But what really gets me is how Ma Ying Jeou managed to keep office. For instance, the chairman of the ARATS came to Taiwan, and under Ma Ying Jeou’s administration they removed the ROC flag at all the hotels he was at and every other place in Taiwan he’s been to. That pissed alot of Taiwanese off. Not to mention that when Taiwan officials visit China, they don’t remove the PRC flag for them. And yet Ma says nothing. Even at Taiwan universities, I read that under Ma’s administration they are to remove the ROC flags for PRC students, whereas the PRC universities never remove the PRC flag for Taiwan students. Ma says nothing. Not to mention Ma’s approval rating had dropped severely within the first 8 months of Ma taking office. Also I have seen youtube videos of massive protests against Ma for being to close to China. As well as under Ma, the police forces have been ordered to seize Taiwanese flags held by Taiwanese protesters during the ARATS chairman visit. As well as confronting those that would play Taiwanese patriotic music. I read before 2008 that Ma Ying Jeou would constantly criticize the CCP regime for it’s human rights abuses and promised that if elected in 2008, he would diplomatically engage China in human rights talks and seek political pardons for political dissidents. After Ma Ying Jeou became President, he forgot what he promised. I am literally shocked that Ma Ying Jeou won a second term.

Do the Taiwanese truly care whether or not they are part of China? I bet just a few threats from China and Ma would’ve won by a larger result. The CCP might as well just reward Taiwan by pouring billions of dollars into the Taiwanese economy to help create jobs for Taiwanese in order to guarantee another KMT win in 2016. I even read a report on NTDTV that most Taiwanese are concerned about jobs. Not China. Meaning that if being a second Hong Kong would mean even just a little bit of economic improvement, they’ll accept it.

But at the very least, the election was fair and within the guidelines of democracy, freedom, and liberty. The people of Taiwan have a choice to become another PRC SAR. Freedom is their right. If they make that request, then we all have to respect that. With that being said, I can see clearly that countries like the US would rather see that happen. According to reports, the US indirectly favored Ma. And after this last election, and even after the 2008 elections the US and China both breathed a sigh of relief. Which means that being incorporated into China in the long run is really the only choice the Taiwanese people have anyway. I was watching CCTV9 once in 2006 and in a dialogue, a Chinese scholar appeared on TV. He was known to have predicted the exact day and hour President Bush would publicly declare war on Iraq which included the 24 hour notice he gave of the invasion. This scholar who’s name I can’t remember also went on to say that Taiwan will be unified as a province of China. Taiwan SAR.

And it will happen.

3

[quote=“fruitloop”] Apart from anything else, there are probably some voters who wouldn’t vote for a woman (more than those who would vote for her because she is a woman). I didn’t see much of the campaign so I don’t really know, but she looked reasonably impressive to me. Certainly no disgrace.

Which means, do losers always resign? Not always. In Taiwan, Lian Chan didn’t resign/leave the stage in 2000 and took over a year to go after 2004.

Elsewhere, it’s not uncommon for American contenders to run more than once for the nomination, at least (not sure about if they get beaten in the actual election - please enlighten me). In the UK, it depends on the circumstances. In 1983, Michael Foot got a thumping, was seen as old and a loser. He was replaced by Kinnock with a long term project to reform the Labour Party, so when he made progress but still lost in 1987, he got another chance in 1992, after which he resigned. William Hague lost for the Conservatives in 2001 and went not because he lost but because he lost quite badly and was perceived as weird (the Conservative Party is more ruthless than the Labour Party). Michael Howard was always a stand in (also perceived as a bit weird), to be replaced by a new generation after 2005. Gordon Brown had been on the scene for 20 years, lost badly (in some senses) and was seen as weird.

Having said all that, leading the party and running for President seem to be more fluid in Taiwan. Perhaps it would not be surprising to see Tsai again in 4 years.[/quote]

I think this result bodes poorly for the DPP. Tsai is the best they’ve got. She’s erudite, internationally educated, and moderate on China/trade issues. Today there was talk of Su leading the party again. If they keep recycling old faces from the lawyer and 1979 incident generation, the elections to come will be even bigger losses.

4

This is normal in Asian culture. It’s taking responsibility for the loss.

5

Agreed. It’s time for renewal. If she follows the 1979 generation’s example, Tsai and her contemporaries (such as they are) will be with us until 2035 or so. I would think she’s (should have) got a good 5 years or so in her though. Question is, is resigning just par for the course post election behaviour. I suspect so - not unreasonably. But I think it would be better if the leaders either stayed or went. But that is partly a difference between presidential systems and parliamentary ones - with presidential systems you have a fallow period for opposition parties in between elections whereas in parliamentary systems the leader of the opposition needs to be ready as alternative prime minister from day 1. Too bad no one told Ed Miliband.

Yes. As opposed to bowing out - which is what it usually (though not always) is in the UK.

6

[quote=“Jonny”]Do the Taiwanese truly care whether or not they are part of China? I bet just a few threats from China and Ma would’ve won by a larger result. The CCP might as well just reward Taiwan by pouring billions of dollars into the Taiwanese economy to help create jobs for Taiwanese in order to guarantee another KMT win in 2016. I even read a report on NTDTV that most Taiwanese are concerned about jobs. Not China. Meaning that if being a second Hong Kong would mean even just a little bit of economic improvement, they’ll accept it.

But at the very least, the election was fair and within the guidelines of democracy, freedom, and liberty. The people of Taiwan have a choice to become another PRC SAR. Freedom is their right. If they make that request, then we all have to respect that.[/quote]

I don’t know how it is up north, but my facebook is filled with people writing comments and statuses talking about how they’re worried he won’t protect the independence of Taiwan. I’m in an area that was I believe 60% for Tsai, but it just seems like the whole China issue is big for them. Maybe in more moderate areas they don’t care as much.

Also, I think it’s horribly unfair that if 51 percent want to become SAR, the 40%+ who are highly against it have absolutely no say. That’s a lot of people who get completely screwed over. I’ll be honest too, I know that they have the right to vote, and it’s definitely not my choice what happens, but it really disturbs me that the Waishengren are able to sway everything over to the KMT. I’m a huge idealist, and it is what it is, but the whole idea that they took everything from the Taiwanese, oppressed them for years, and are still able to suppress their voices, it’s just really frustrating.

7

I’m sure the first thing Ma did this morning was check his Facebook. He won’t give that up.

8

Because that’s what I was referring to when I responded to “Do Taiwanese truly care whether or not they are part of China?” Exactly. Yep.

9

This presents a goof opportunity for the DPP to clean out all the remains of the Ah Bian cronies.

If they can do this and present a group of solid, honest candidates with a true focus on politics that focus on what is best for the future of Taiwan, then this election will have beneficial results.

If its back to “business as usual”…the results will continue to be the same.

10

Shengou, ma’s position is no union, no independence as is most of the electorate.
I feel that timing is important, Ma has recovered from the lows of morakot and many Taiwanese feared more instability, basically most opted for some surety over the next 4 years. Fear of the unknown and with some justification from history.

11

[quote=“headhonchoII”]Shengou, ma’s position is no union, no independence as is most of the electorate.
I feel that timing is important, Ma has recovered from the lows of morakot and many Taiwanese feared more instability, basically most opted for some surety over the next 4 years. Fear of the unknown and with some justification from history.[/quote]

I know that’s his position, and I really do hope that he does a great job this term. But I think that people are justified in being skeptical of his positions. When I look at many of the Taiwanese, I see a people who have been beaten over and over and over. It’s normal (and perhaps smart at the time) to want to keep the status quo. Hell, even I was a bit afraid about what China might do if Tsai was elected. But at the same time, in almost all cases, in sports, politics, whatever, you will eventually lose if you keep opting for the status quo. And I know quite a few Taiwanese who are legit scared that Taiwan will become a part of China during Ma’s second term.

12

[quote=“headhonchoII”]Shengou, ma’s position is no union, no independence as is most of the electorate.
I feel that timing is important, Ma has recovered from the lows of morakot and many Taiwanese feared more instability, basically most opted for some surety over the next 4 years. Fear of the unknown and with some justification from history.[/quote]

Do you really think so? To me this election clearly demonstrated that Taiwanese vote on party lines and one party has a majority of support: and will for the forseeable future. I don’t think policy matters much to be honest as there is only a very tiny percentage of swing voters (certainly not the 10-20% many people thought).

Even if the election had happened directly after Morakot I don’t think there would have been more than a 2% difference in the vote.

I thought, and hoped, Taiwan (I should call it the ROC from now on) could be different, but it’s not. This is not to say it isn’t democratic, or free. There are lots of towns and states and provinces in the west that vote in one party decade after decade. My disappointment, and it is great, lies more in the fact that I don’t want to live in a society where the majority share the values of the KMT. :s

13

[quote=“Mucha Man”] Do you really think so? To me this election clearly demonstrated that Taiwanese vote on party lines and one party has a majority of support: and will for the forseeable future. I don’t think policy matters much to be honest as there is only a very tiny percentage of swing voters (certainly not the 10-20% many people thought).

Even if the election had happened directly after Morakot I don’t think there would have been more than a 2% difference in the vote.

I thought, and hoped, Taiwan (I should call it the ROC from now on) could be different, but it’s not. This is not to say it isn’t democratic, or free. There are lots of towns and states and provinces in the west that vote in one party decade after decade. My disappointment, and it is great, lies more in the fact that I don’t want to live in a society where the majority share the values of the KMT. :s[/quote]

You hit that one on the head, and blogs such as frozen garlic have alluded to that much, unfortunately without taking the consequence of it.

The locals seem more happy with the KMT that we would think or like, and that will not change for a long time.

I read that the DPP would the perfect campaign and the KMT to screw up rather badly in order to win, well yes, 2004 would be proof of that, with the assasination attempt on Chen and the sympathy vote just enough to push Chen over 50%.

If conditions are not that extreme, you will need a KMT split, IE someone very popular and powerful leaving to run on his own, I can’t see anyone strong enough to pull that off right now, however it might change. Eric Chu may be strong enough to try, however it’s more likely that he will run on the official ticket in 2016.

Making it even more interesting is that this island was run by leaders more green than blue from 1988 through 2008, and still, the majority would appear to be closer to horsey then to Presidents Lee and Chen.

14

The DPP need to go into power as part of a coalition, the current system which they supported , ironically enough, makes it difficult to do this as a party needs over 5% of the votes to be allowed to register. A 3rd party would create a new swing force which would moderate deep greens and blues but allow both to gain power. The current situation suits the KMT more.

How would such a party come about? Perhaps a split although the KMT are very aware of this danger these days. PPP or TSU? Nope.
Aboriginals? Not enough votes I guess. Hakka? Could have a powerful swing vote but but have no beef with KMT and pretty non political in general, easily bought off.
Young people? Seem too dependent on mummy and daddy’s decisions and opinions and lack consensus.
DPP split? Possibility to build up from there but maybe hard to get over 50% as may erode each others voting base in places.

15

[quote=“Mucha Man”][quote=“headhonchoII”]Shengou, ma’s position is no union, no independence as is most of the electorate.
I feel that timing is important, Ma has recovered from the lows of morakot and many Taiwanese feared more instability, basically most opted for some surety over the next 4 years. Fear of the unknown and with some justification from history.[/quote]

Do you really think so? To me this election clearly demonstrated that Taiwanese vote on party lines and one party has a majority of support: and will for the forseeable future. I don’t think policy matters much to be honest as there is only a very tiny percentage of swing voters (certainly not the 10-20% many people thought).

Even if the election had happened directly after Morakot I don’t think there would have been more than a 2% difference in the vote.

I thought, and hoped, Taiwan (I should call it the ROC from now on) could be different, but it’s not. This is not to say it isn’t democratic, or free. There are lots of towns and states and provinces in the west that vote in one party decade after decade. My disappointment, and it is great, lies more in the fact that I don’t want to live in a society where the majority share the values of the KMT. :s[/quote]

You could always live in Tainan :slight_smile: .

16

On the basis of them being (more) conservative, the party of a dominant ethnic elite and the socio-economic elite/big business? Or the single cross strait and identity issue?

Short of a final resolution to independence/unification, is there any hope of normalising Taiwanese politics - by which I mean moving away from single issue/ethnic identity politics, as is necessary in places such as Northern Ireland and other divided societies? Then again, Taiwan is not quite like that - otherwise the DPP would have a permanent majority rather than the other way round.

Does anyone here (broadly) favour the DPP because of their socio-economic and political ideology (supposedly liberal/social democratic), as opposed to them being the good guys to the KMT’s bad guys on the straits issue and all the bad shit that went on under marshal law period?

17

This is my first time posting on the Taiwan Politics forum. Just had two questions about Tsai.

  1. I noticed hearing about 15 minutes of her concession speech that she spoke primarily in Mandarin whereas in the past most DPP candidates such as Chen, Hsieh, and others spoke almost totally in Taiwanese. Any thoughts as to the reason? It seems like in the past and even now most DPP supporters felt that if you did not use Taiwanese you had a problem with identifying with Taiwan. So why did Tsai use primarily Mandarin?

  2. Another thing that one friend mentioned to me was that since Tsai never held elective offfice that perhaps that might effect whether people would not vote for her. The last three elected presidents all were mayors of Taipei and the last two used it as a stepping stone to the presidency. Will that be the same in the future?

18

Tsai didn’t do a bad job at all this election. She made some errors (like springing the coalition idea too late rather than at the start of the campaign when she could explain it better). But then Ma fucked up over the peace treaty idea.

The KMT is a lot like the LDP in Japan. Both parties had a stranglehold over politics in each country for a long time. Although for most of that period in Taiwan the KMT were authoritarian, they reformed before they were overthrown so they weren’t tainted like the Communists in Eastern Europe. Many Taiwanese just seem to think the KMT is by default good on domestic issues. And we have to remember that very many Taiwanese just don’t think relations with China are a problem. They wouldn’t support unification but they (rightly or wrongly) trust the KMT to defend their independence. If at some point the KMT starts pushing unification, international ties might allow the DPP to replace the KMT as the dominant political force in Taiwan. But I don’t see that happening. And more importantly, if the KMT did start doing it they’d probably end democracy, sell Taiwan to Beijing and hand over the keys. Then the PLA would sort it all out. If Taiwanese have anything to fear about the KMT, they’ll probably only realise it when it’s too late to do anything about it.

Did Tsai have to resign? Probably not. But she didn’t really enthuse the electorate enough to throw an incumbent out.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]This presents a goof opportunity for the DPP to clean out all the remains of the Ah Bian cronies.

If they can do this and present a group of solid, honest candidates with a true focus on politics that focus on what is best for the future of Taiwan, then this election will have beneficial results.

If its back to “business as usual”…the results will continue to be the same.[/quote]

Why is it ok for the KMT to have candidates who are corrupt and/or linked to organised crime and hold on to $US billions that they stole from the State decades ago, but the DPP must be forever shunned because their former leader was linked to corruption, chiefly because of the actions of his wife instead of the fact it was clear he had done the wrong-doing?

If Taiwanese swing-voters honestly think the KMT is cleaner than the DPP then they deserve to be forcibly unified with China and have the PLA’s jackboot inserted up their rectums. But I seriously doubt that’s the case. At least, I hope it’s not the case. :wink:

Ma says a lot of things, but it’s not clear he means them. For example, he has refused to give the public a binding referendum on the proposed peace treaty. That bodes very badly for the future, especially given that the KMT still have a comfortable legislative majority so he’ll be able to jam whatever he likes through the legislative yuan.

19

I wouldn’t get your knickers in a knot over this. I can fully understand feelings of disappointment because your preferred party didn’t win but I don’t think it is accurate/realistic to completely reject the values of any party 100% or critique the society for voting the way they did. There is too much idealism in holding those viewpoints.

I would argue, that in most modern countries/regions that are relatively democratic or fully democratic in structure (e.g., Taiwan, North America, Europe etc.), 90% of activities in government remain the same regardless of who is in government/power. That 10% is what people get worked up about in their ideological mudslinging. In other words, the transfer of power from one party to another is not all that huge. Most “shit” remains the same! :laughing: And those 10% of files where changes in governments do make a huge difference are always plagued by rivalries and balances of power that are more centered on personalities than party affiliation. With so much tribalism/competitive rivalries even within party apparatuses and civil service structures, I don’t think there is any such thing as uniform values as you mention. :laughing: :laughing: There are such intense rivalries, ideological differences, personal animosities, power plays etc. within a ruling party/civil service that good/evil become blurred very quickly. In other words, I wouldn’t say the values of the KMT and DPP are all that different. :laughing: Power is power and the pragmatic often rules over the ideological.

20

[quote=“cueball”]Tsai didn’t do a bad job at all this election. She made some errors (like springing the coalition idea too late rather than at the start of the campaign when she could explain it better). But then Ma fucked up over the peace treaty idea.

The KMT is a lot like the LDP in Japan. Both parties had a stranglehold over politics in each country for a long time. Although for most of that period in Taiwan the KMT were authoritarian, they reformed before they were overthrown so they weren’t tainted like the Communists in Eastern Europe. Many Taiwanese just seem to think the KMT is by default good on domestic issues. And we have to remember that very many Taiwanese just don’t think relations with China are a problem. They wouldn’t support unification but they (rightly or wrongly) trust the KMT to defend their independence. If at some point the KMT starts pushing unification, international ties might allow the DPP to replace the KMT as the dominant political force in Taiwan. But I don’t see that happening. And more importantly, if the KMT did start doing it they’d probably end democracy, sell Taiwan to Beijing and hand over the keys. Then the PLA would sort it all out. If Taiwanese have anything to fear about the KMT, they’ll probably only realize it when it’s too late to do anything about it.

Did Tsai have to resign? Probably not. But she didn’t really enthuse the electorate enough to throw an incumbent out.[/quote]
Quite agree with this analysis. If Taiwan goes under to PRC domination:
Under DPP - it would probably be a military, no matter how haphazardly it might be resisted, action.
Under KMT - it would most likely occur without a shot being fired (perhaps the occasional AD (accidental discharge)) and with a mere changing of uniforms. Business would be as usual the next morning and the papers might make a small note of the change.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]This presents a goof opportunity for the DPP to clean out all the remains of the Ah Bian cronies.

If they can do this and present a group of solid, honest candidates with a true focus on politics that focus on what is best for the future of Taiwan, then this election will have beneficial results.

If its back to “business as usual”…the results will continue to be the same.[/quote]

[quote=“cueball”]Why is it ok for the KMT to have candidates who are corrupt and/or linked to organized crime and hold on to $US billions that they stole from the State decades ago, but the DPP must be forever shunned because their former leader was linked to corruption, chiefly because of the actions of his wife instead of the fact it was clear he had done the wrong-doing?

If Taiwanese swing-voters honestly think the KMT is cleaner than the DPP then they deserve to be forcibly unified with China and have the PLA’s jackboot inserted up their rectums. But I seriously doubt that’s the case. At least, I hope it’s not the case. :wink:[/quote]

Cueball - My comments were directed toward the possible re-vamping of the DPP - notice that I did not mention the KMT.

I am asked fairly frequently which of the parties on the island I prefer - being a U.S. citizen I do not vote here so I make it clear that I am merely an observer of the game here. I state that I prefer the party which will do the best for the interests of TAIWAN.
IMO, party affiliation most times hinders the well-intentioned actions of the political player. Most all start out with the best of hopes and then have those hopes crushed by the party machine.

In this recent toss-up, it is my personal belief that overall, and on the world stage, President Ma represents what is best for TAIWAN.

I also think one of the above comments hits it right on the head with the over-wrought angst about what happened 40-50-60 years ago re: the KMT. Get over it. Deal with todays issues.

Anyone know if Hsiao Ah Bian now goes back to jail down in K-Town?

Buh-bye… :kiss: