Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) has won the race to be the new Mayor of Taipei. This fact, to those unfamiliar with Taiwan, may not seem all that significant. Why should anyone care who oversees bin collections in Songshan District? But context, as ever, is everything. Because the Taipei mayoral election is widely seen as a proxy battle for future presidential elections, with previous Taiwanese presidents Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) both mayors of Taipei before winning the presidency. Additionally, Chiang’s win appears to confirm significant personal popularity, in part stemming from his family background as the great-grandson of Taiwan’s authoritarian leader, Chiang Kai-shek (蔣中正), which helps make that next step feel more plausible.
Saturday’s win, then, places the latest Chiang as a leading Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate to be Taiwan’s president after his time as mayor. But that is not all. If he were to serve one full term and run, that could put him in contention for the 2028 presidential election. If he were to serve the maximum of two full terms, that could put him in contention for 2032. That time period is significant to realist analysts, who look at China’s economic and military progress and believe it presents a window of opportunity for the country to attempt an invasion of Taiwan.
So, regardless of the fact that there are massive assumptions built into all of that, it’s worth asking what Chiang represents. But the answer is that he seems remarkably like a blank canvas for someone with so much talk around him, and who now occupies a high-profile elected office.
Since returning to Taiwan from the U.S. in 2013, having worked as a lawyer, his main skill appears to be in saying as little as possible. Take the build-up to Taiwan’s four-question referendum earlier this year, on referendum dates, nuclear power, pork imports and algal reef protection, for example: “He spoke in 12 administrative districts in Taipei, but only mentioned pork imports and not the other three issues.” Then, when asked about avoiding the other issues, he simply said his stand was the same as the KMT’s.
When he has not been directly avoiding saying anything, he has, more reasonably, attempted to focus on local Taipei issues, such as “urban regeneration.” Or priority consideration for public housing. Or offering local residents free access to local sports centers. But this is not exactly the level of information one might expect to know about someone touted as a future president.
On the most high-profile issue in national Taiwanese politics — the relationship with China — the priority has been avoiding sticking his head above the parapet by sticking to his party line in as quiet a way as possible. In November, he said: “There’s no need to even think about [unification with China]. I’ll definitely oppose it to the end, and uphold the dignity of the Republic of China.” Or in August he emphasized business ties: “The major business groups in Taiwan have urged both Taiwan and China to prioritize civilian and economic needs,” he said, adding: “The KMT would try to understand the need of young people in startups, Taiwanese businesses and students to maintain the bilateral talks.” On the controversial visit of Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan in August, he again hugged the KMT’s party line, tweeting for the first time in months: “Speaker Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan reflects the solid US-ROC relationship that is built upon decades of continuous cooperation. Taiwan will always be a strong partner to foster democratic alliance with US in Asia.”
Where he has occasionally indicated any overarching vision of his own, he looks like a pretty standard free-market neoliberal. He told the 2022 Happy Enterprise Awards Ceremony that he sees government’s strength as limited, adding that he wants to make Taipei City a service-oriented government. His method for achieving that was, he said, not to be bound by laws and regulations — framing the removal of legal obstacles as the path to progress. His approach to encouraging healthy living was a points system, with residents given rewards like free bus tickets for exercising more. His public housing offer was offering special privileges for married couples with at least two children. His approach to “urban regeneration” was — in a repeat of the above — “dar[ing] to break through limitations of the laws and regulations.” (The tactical savviness in the last of those seemed a little underdeveloped, as he chose to speak about deregulation as a response to earthquake safety issues — surely shaky ground, so to speak, that invites an easy repost for any genuine opponent.) But these statements leak in around the sides of a lot more empty sentiment like wanting to do “the right thing.” Whatever that means.
Chiang, then, has the feel of former U.K. prime minister David “Teflon Dave” Cameron: When asked why he wanted to be Prime Minister, Cameron famously replied “Because I think I’d be good at it.” The vacuity of that answer came from someone who felt they were born to rule, and thus had never really considered what the power could be wielded for, only that he had to have it. For Cameron, what that turned into was gifting control of the U.K. Conservative Party to its right wing, and those beyond it in the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) by offering an in-out E.U. referendum which his side would go on to lose. It’s not clear what the apparent void would mean for Chiang — he may have a lot of ideas and just not told the public — but the idea he is vulnerable to influence from more established figures within his party was floated with authority by Nathan Batto, Jointly Appointed Associate Research Fellow at the Election Study Center, National Chengchi University, when he avoided running for Taipei Mayor in 2016.
However it plays out — and Chiang’s win doesn’t mean his party is suddenly in a great position to win a national election after losing the last two presidential elections — there has been much talk this week in Taiwan of celebrating the health of its democracy, based on the liveliness of street rallies and being free and fair. But Chiang Wan-an’s election should offer a note of caution around that idea. If he can continue keeping his cards close to his chest, what does it say about the quality of debate and level of accountability?
None of this is to endorse the main rivals Chiang has just beaten. Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Chen Shih-chung (陳時中) looked like an uninspiring bureaucrat most of the time, and third candidate Huang Shan-shan (黃珊珊) was, in the end, not successful in presenting herself as an alternative to KMT-DPP politics. What’s more, Chiang has not been alone in being vacuous. But the point is, for now, a city in which young people can’t move out of their parent’s houses because even public housing is so unaffordable has just elected a “good boy” trumpeting “deregulation.” And he did it without ever giving very much away. That could mean a lot more if he can repeat the trick again in a few years’ time.
Image: 玄史生, via Wikipedia
Leave a Reply