How Ma Ying-jeou shot himself in the foot

http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2013/03/20/how-ma-ying-jeou-shot-himself-in-the-foot/

By Chris Wang.

51.6, 13 and three. Those are probably the only numbers one needs to know when examining Taiwanese politics a year or so on from President Ma Ying-jeou’s re-election in January 2012.

Ma, who won the fiercely-contested presidential election in 2012 with 51.6 percent of the votes, six percentage points ahead of his rival Tsai Ing-wen of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), has seen his approval rating plummet to 13 percent with three years still left in his second term.

The DPP One Year On: Regrouping or Regressing?

By Chris Wang.

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) thought it had President Ma Ying-jeou beaten in the presidential election in January last year. But ultimately the party saw its candidate Tsai Ing-wen lose by the margin of six percentage points, or about 800,000 votes. The widespread defeatism among DPP supporters and party members was easy to understand as they figured a victory was within reach. Lackluster governance during Ma’s first term and a brilliant DPP presidential candidate in Tsai was cause for optimism that proved misplaced.

A quick bout of soul-searching after the election concluded that the DPP lost for a number of reasons: its vague China policy, fears that a DPP administration would lead to stagnant trade exchanges with China, several business tycoons’ endorsement of the KMT’s cross-Strait postures and untimely jabs from Washington.

Observations from a Taiwanese politics correspondent

With three weeks left before the election day on January 14, here are my observations of the tightly-contested elections:

US messages

The American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) announced on Dec. 22 that Taiwan was nominated for inclusion in the US Visa Waiver Program (VWP), saying that it was “the culmination of hard work and cooperation between the authorities in Taiwan and the United States.”

Despite the AIT stressing that the announcement was unrelated to the presidential election, the fact that the announcement came three weeks before election day still had the political implication of a US preference in the election – at least for Taiwanese politicians.

In the first of three televised platform presentations on Dec. 23, President Ma Ying-jeou wasted no time in highlighting that the US decision was a reflection of warmer bilateral relations during his term and it was part of his successful diplomacy while the Democratic Progressive party (DPP) said the candidacy has been a collective effort of the government and the Taiwanese people.

This is not the first time the US was said to be sending messages with political implications at the wrong time.

In September, London-based Financial Times quoted an unnamed US official as saying that the US was concerned about stability across the Taiwan Strait if DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen was elected.

The US also sent deputy secretary of energy Daniel Poneman, the highest-ranking US official to visit Taiwan in over a decade, to Taipei last week.

The US should do what it preaches – maintain neutrality in Taiwan’s upcoming presidential election.

Do you believe in polls?

Public opinion polls on the presidential election conducted by various news agencies, thinktanks and institutions have been published almost on a daily basis. Anyone who follows them regularly would find the results very confusing.

While several recent polls showed that Tsai’s support rate had caught up with – even surpassed – Ma’s, most polls still say Ma is ahead.

Sources have said the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) internal poll showed Ma is leading by 7-8 percent, which represents over one million votes while the campaign of People First Party (PFP) chairman James Soong and the national security authority, which conducted its own poll privately, both believed Tsai is going to win by a margin of 2-4 percent, which translates into 260,000 to 520,000 votes.

When Tsai was asked about her opinion toward public opinion polls, she has always said that her campaign will take them “as references.” So you get the idea.

The DPP’s support rate in presidential elections in the past were often underestimated by 10-15 percentage points. It appeared that this year is not the case because more pan-green supporters were willing to express their preferences.

Impact of negative campaigning

The KMT and the DPP have engaged in a war of negative campaigning as the KMT has brought up the case about Yu Chang Biologics Co. and questioned Tsai’s role and alleged improper profiteering before, during and after the formation of the biotech company.

The DPP has answered with a controversial case of the merger of two banks in 2002 when Ma served as Taipei City mayor.

Both parties have accused the other side of “character assassination.”

It seems to me that the negative campaigning from both sides did not benefit their campaigns, as many people expressed their displeasure of the smear war in the newspapers, blogs and social media websites.

As the one which first launched the attack, the KMT’s motive was intriguing. If it is leading by 7-8 percent in support rate as it claims, launching such attack one month before the election day would be unnecessary.

Some analysts observed that, because the election has been so tightly-contested, the KMT was hoping to vie for the support of swing voters by doing this – even if it ended up influencing only one per cent of the electorate.

Legislative Yuan elections

The KMT is trying to secure 60 of 113 legislative seats in the legislative elections while the DPP is eyeing 50. These goals tell different stories.

The KMT’s goal of 60 shows how bad the party has done since 2008, when it won 81 of 113 seats. However, if it is able to win 60, the KMT will still control the legislature.

The interesting thing is, while the DPP’s slogan for the LY elections appeal for support to gain more than half of the 113 legislative seats, the party already knew it would not accomplish the feat, which was why it has a goal of 50.

A phenomenon worth noticing is the so-called “split voting,” which means a voter votes for party A in the legislative elections and party B in the presidential election.

There have been reports in southern Taiwan that KMT legislative candidates asked voters to support them and said it’s fine to vote for Tsai in the presidential election. The main reason is the KMT, Ma in particular, has been unpopular in the south.

Chris Wang is a politics reporter and analyst for the Taipei Times

Can Taiwan achieve something the US could not?

In the first half of the presidential campaign, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was bothered by one thing only: the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) seemed to be shadowing their every move.

The KMT sent King Pu-tsung, President Ma Ying-jeou’s campaign manager, on a US trip at almost the exact same time as DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen’s. King visited every city Tsai went to and delivered a speech at Harvard University, where Tsai also spoke, on the same day.

On the policy front, the DPP claimed that the KMT was being a “copycat” by plagiarizing Tsai’s platforms, including her policies on housing, tax reform, agricultural subsidies and labour.

The KMT denied the DPP’s claim.

The DPP went on to launch its slogan for the second part of the campaign – “Taiwan’s first female president,” a claim that the KMT can not duplicate for an obvious reason.

Her campaign adopted the slogan not because it is “trendy” or “fashionable,”, but because women are often more able to solve problems in a harmonious way through better communication than men, Tsai said, adding that women are usually more perseverant and persistent as well.

In constituencies of Hakka ethnicity, the DPP has been using “Hakka girl for president” as its main slogan to promote its candidate who shares the same characteristics – frugality and perseverance, among others – with Hakka women.

Tsai did try to run her campaign in a much “softer” way in comparison to previous DPP candidates. She made clear that she does not like “negative campaigning” nor fighting the rhetorical battle.

However, the slogan also has a strategic implication in securing more votes from women.

Seen as a progressive and confrontational party since its founding in the martial law era, the DPP has had a hard time to appeal to women voters, often trailing the KMT by more than 10 percentage points in elections.

Frank Hsieh’s loss to Ma, whose good-looking appearance is believed to be one of his advantages in vying for female voters, in the 2008 presidential election by more than two million votes marked the lowest point. An unofficial tally showed that more than 4.8 million of Ma’s 7.65 million votes, or 62.7 percent, came from women voters.

The party also cited various countries, including Iceland, Thailand and Germany, which are led by a female head of state, as examples, and said that it is time for Taiwan to have a female leader.

It would be crucial for Tsai to bridge the gap and vie for women’s support on the presumption of their preference for a female leader.

Results of various recent public opinion polls are mixed. A survey conducted by the Taiwan Brain Trust between Oct. 28 and 29 found that Tsai has cut her deficit in women’s support against Ma to 39.3%-35.7%, which the DPP said is the closest of any DPP presidential candidate, and has led Ma by 2.8 percent.

Another poll conducted by Taiwan Association of Pacific Ocean Development between Oct. 31 and Nov. 2 found that Tsai still trailed Ma 38.6%-30.3% in terms of women support and she is behind Ma by 7.3 percentage points overall.

The appeal seemed to be received well in DPP rallies and Tsai’s presidential campaign visits everywhere. However, do Taiwanese women voters prefer a female leader? Are they ready to do something the Americans did not do? It remains unknown until election day.

Chris Wang is a political analyst, writer and editor at the Taipei Times. He writes here in a personal capacity.

Peace talk plan ignites presidential race

Recent initiatives submitted by Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou about signing a peace agreement with China within 10 years to end hostilities have sparked intense public debates on one of the most sensitive topics of cross-Taiwan Straits engagement in the run-up to the January presidential election.

In fact, it was not the first time the topic was mentioned in the presidential campaign.

King Pu-tsung, chief executive manager of Ma’s re-election campaign office, first floated the idea on Sept. 12 during his visit to the US from Sept. 9-20, saying that cross-strait engagement does not rule out any possibility, including a peace agreement, if Ma was elected to a second term.

The Presidential Office denied the claim the following day, with the presidential spokesman Fang Chiang Tai-chi saying that there is no urgency in launching political talks with China, nor does Ma plan to visit China in any capacity any time soon.

However, Ma said in a presidential press conference on Oct. 17 that his administration would “cautiously consider” whether Taiwan should sign a peace agreement with China within the next decade, adding that such a move would require three preconditions – genuine needs of the country, strong domestic backing and supervision by the legislature.

The proposal was questioned by the opposition Democratic Progressive party (DPP).

Tsai Ing-wen, the DPP’s presidential candidate and Chairperson, told a press conference on Oct. 19 that the proposal exposed Taiwanese to four serious risks — the sacrifice of Taiwan’s sovereignty, a change in the “status quo” across the Taiwan Strait, the jeopardizing of Taiwan’s democratic values and damage to the nation’s strategic depth in bilateral negotiations

Ma’s proposal was “irresponsible and impetuous” and that it amounted to the manipulation of a highly sensitive political issue to cover up his administration’s failures, as well as a bargaining chip that benefits his presidential campaign, she said.

To answer the criticism, Ma said on Oct. 20 that a national referendum would be required before signing any peace agreement with China.

The DPP went on to urge Ma to launch talks on amending Taiwan’s Referendum Act to include articles requiring that cross-strait political negotiations be subject to referendums. The KMT rejected the invitation, saying that an amendment is “unnecessary.”

While several pro-China newspaper had lambasted the referendum idea, which has long been seen as one of China’s “red line,” China did not make an official response until Oct. 26, when Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman Yang Yi said that the move was good for both sides, but criticized the referendum initiative without mentioning Ma.

A poll conducted by Taiwan’s Research, Development and Evaluation Commission in May showed that less than 40 per cent of people were satisfied with Ma’s cross-strait policy. The results were not released until early October.

Surveys have consistently shown strong public backing for talks between Taiwan and China, the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) said in an Oct. 24 statement.

The timing and intention of Ma’s initiative were intriguing.

Most observers agree that cross-strait policy is Ma’s biggest advantage over his DPP rival, since he has reduced tension across the strait. That could be the reason why Ma decided to shift the focus of his campaign from domestic affairs back to the China policy.

The proposal could also be an attempt to “marginalize” the campaign of People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong, who holds similar China policy with Ma and could jeopardize Ma’s bid at the ballot box, because voters would likely choose between the KMT or the DPP if China policy became the central theme of the campaign and there would be no room left for the third candidate, observers said.

Regardless of what intentions Ma might have, the initiative appeared to have hurt his campaign with recent poll showed that his lead over Tsai had shrunk from 5 to 8 per cent to 3.7 per cent.

Chris Wang is a political analyst, writer and editor with the Taipei Times.