Skip to main content

Young Taiwanese voters could swing the upcoming presidential election, deciding the island’s future relationship with China

In short: Taiwan’s Jan. 13 presidential election could decide the course of the self-governed island’s relationship with China, which claims it as part of its territory. At least a quarter of Taiwan’s eligible voters are between 20 and 40 years old, a group that overwhelmingly supports an independent Taiwan. Taiwan has accused China of attempting to intimidate voters ahead of the election.

How could the youth vote affect Taiwan’s election?

At least a quarter of Taiwan’s eligible voters are between 20 and 40 years old, including just over 1 million first-time voters between the ages of 20 and 23. According to recent polling, young Taiwanese people overwhelmingly support an independent Taiwan and are less likely to support economic relations between Taiwan and China. 

With young people making up such a large part of the electorate, it’s expected their vote will play an important role in the election’s outcome.

But young Taiwanese activists who talked with Focus Taiwan said that how young people will vote depends on whether they believe a candidate will make their lives better, especially when it comes to wages, housing costs, and relations with China.

The economy is one of young voters' top concerns

Among young Taiwanese voters’ chief concerns is the economy, which grew by just 1.61% in 2023. Young voters say wages aren’t keeping up with the cost of living. The minimum wage in Taiwan was recently raised to $5.72 per hour, or for those on a monthly wage, to $859 per month, about a 4% increase for both. Meanwhile, rent prices are at their highest in nearly three decades.

 

Candidates must also motivate young people enough to travel to cast their vote, these same activists said.

Taiwan does not have an electronic voter system or allow for absentee voting, so people must  cast their vote according to their “household registration.” For many young people, that means returning to their hometown.

Unlike in the U.S., where a voter 18 or older who’s away from home could either cast an absentee ballot or register to vote in their college town, Taiwanese voters are automatically registered at 20 years old based on their legally designated household. So, a 20-year-old Taiwanese student who lives on campus miles away would have to travel to their hometown to cast their vote. 

Taiwanese voter turnout is higher than in the U.S.

Despite voting challenges, Taiwan has a comparatively high voter turnout compared to the U.S. In the Taiwanese 2020 presidential election, 74.9% of registered voters cast their vote. Compare this with the U.S. 2020 presidential election, which had a 66.8% turnout rate, the country’s highest voter turnout of the century.

In an interview with CNN, 26-year-old student Carrie Wang said, “For me, I think it is most important to choose a president who can best move our country forward in the international world.”

Why is this year’s presidential election so important?

Along with the huge number of first-time voters expected to turn out, this election is important because it could affect Taiwan’s relationship with China, which has been increasingly aggressive in the South China Sea, which both countries claim as their territory.


The Overview newsletter

The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.

 

In November, a Chinese official and director of the State Council’s Taiwan Affairs Office referred to the upcoming vote as “a choice between war and peace, prosperity and decline,” a sentiment later repeated by the head of China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait, Zhang Zhijun, in a New Year’s message.

Who are the candidates?

Three presidential candidates are on the ballot. From Taiwan’s two major parties, there is current Vice President Lai Ching-te of the Democratic Progressive Party and New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-ih of the Kuomintang, also known as the Nationalist Party. There is also a third-party candidate: Ko Wen-je from the Taiwan People’s Party.

Three people
From Left to Right: Taiwan Vice President and Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate William Lai (Photo: Chiang Ying-ying / AP); Taiwan's Nationalist Party presidential candidate Hou Yu-ih (Photo: Ng Han Guan / AP); Ko Wen-je, Taiwan People's Party (TPP) presidential candidate (Photo: Ng Han Guan / AP)

The DPP currently holds the presidency and supports an independent Taiwan. The KMT opposes independence and believes in the so-called 1992 Consensus, an agreement made between Chinese and KMT officials that acknowledged Taiwan and China as part of “one China,” with each side allowed to interpret what that China is. Taiwan’s current president, Tsai Ing-wen, has rejected the consensus.

Since Tsai came into power in 2016, China has refused nearly all communication with Taiwan because of the DPP government’s rejection of the “one China” principle. China said Taiwan would need to concede its sovereignty before reengaging.

The DPP’s Lai, the current frontrunner, said he is open to reengaging with China “under the principles of equality and dignity.” Lai has also said that he would build up Taiwan’s defense capabilities and strengthen relationships with other democracies.

KMT candidate Hou said he opposes Taiwanese independence but would protect Taiwan’s free democracy while working with China under the “one China” policy.

TPP candidate Ko, a surgeon and former mayor of Taipei, likened the relationship between China and Taiwan to that of a tumor that should be managed but largely left alone.

Why does the U.S. care about the relationship between China and Taiwan?

The U.S. has maintained a delicate balance; it does not officially recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation – which would stoke tensions with China – but has an agreement with Taiwan that requires that the U.S. provide the island with defensive military equipment.

China considers Taiwan, which has been self-ruled for nearly 75 years and a democracy since 1996, to be a “breakaway province that will eventually be under Beijing’s control.” This is because in 1949, after fighting between the Chinese Communist Party and the KMT, the KMT fled to Taiwan and claimed Taipei was China’s temporary capital.

For two decades after 1949, international actors, including the U.S. and the U.N., considered Taiwan to be the official representation of China. But in 1971, the U.N. voted to admit mainland China and expel Taiwan.

In 1979, the U.S. recognized mainland China as the only government of China, and currently operates under a “one China” policy where it “recognizes Beijing as the government of China and maintains unofficial relations with Taiwan.” The U.S. holds the position that it does not support an independent Taiwan.

But the U.S. has had an agreement with Taiwan since 1979 that requires the U.S. to provide Taiwan with defensive military arms and to potentially come to Taiwan’s aid if any countries attacked it.

Taiwan’s defense minister, Chiu Kuo-cheng, said in February that China has been ramping up its efforts to control Taiwan following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Ahead of Taiwan's elections on Jan. 13, China has reaffirmed it would use military force to take control of Taiwan, threatened to put new trade regulations on Taiwanese goods, and launched high-altitude balloons over the island; China claims they’re just weather balloons, but others speculate they’re used for spying.

China also recently told the U.S. that it would “never compromise” on its claim that Taiwan is part of China.

Read next: The U.S. doesn't recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation, so why is it arming the island?

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
5 minute read

See how 32 countries moved away from the US and Israel in latest UN cease-fire vote

In short: The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution on Dec. 12 that called for a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war amid an intensifying humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. The resolution was supported by an overwhelming majority of the 193-member body, receiving 153 votes, compared with 120 votes for the Oct. 27 resolution calling for a “humanitarian truce.”  

The increase in affirmative votes comes from a combination of countries that had previously abstained from voting, voted no, or did not vote when the October resolution for a truce was presented.  

In total, 32 countries signaled a move away from how the U.S. and Israel voted by:  

  • abstaining from the cease-fire vote after voting no in October (three countries) 
  • voting yes after abstaining in October (27 countries) 
  • voting yes after voting no in October (two countries) 

In October, 14 U.N. members did not cast a vote on the humanitarian truce resolution, compared with just seven members who did not vote during proceedings for the December cease-fire resolution.  


The Overview newsletter

The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.

 

What does it mean to abstain from a U.N. vote?

Abstaining from a vote in the U.N. means the country did not vote for or against a resolution. According to U.N. rules, a country that abstains from voting isn’t included in calculating the majority needed to pass a resolution. For example, in the Dec. 12 cease-fire vote, 23 countries abstained and seven didn’t vote, so the two-thirds majority needed to pass the resolution was two-thirds of 163 instead of 193. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, this is one of the reasons abstention is “a key expression” of neutrality, because it “explicitly enables the vote to proceed.”

The two countries that voted against a humanitarian truce in October but which then voted in favor of a cease-fire were Croatia and Fiji.  

In Croatia’s explanation of its vote, the country’s U.N. representative said that Croatia “stands by the right of the state of Israel to defend itself” and called for the immediate release of the hostages held by Hamas. But the representative also said that the mounting civilian casualties in Gaza, 70% of whom are women and children, makes for a “humanitarian emergency” in Gaza.  

While the U.S. voted no against both resolutions, several U.S. allies changed their vote from abstention in October to yes in December, including Australia, Japan, and Canada.  

“The price of defeating Hamas cannot be the continuous suffering of Palestinian civilians … The ongoing humanitarian crisis has weighed heavily in Canada’s decision to support this resolution,” Canada’s representative said when explaining its vote.   

Three countries – Hungary, the Marshall Islands, and Tonga – showed a weakening in their support for Israel’s position by voting in abstention on the cease-fire resolution on Dec. 12 after voting no to the humanitarian truce in October. 

During the General Assembly meeting, Hungary’s representative said it could not support the new resolution because it didn’t condemn the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, but Hungary did support two proposed amendments that specifically named Hamas. 

The two amendments were proposed by Austria and the U.S. The U.S. amendment sought to add language condemning the Oct. 7 attack. The Austria amendment included language such as “held by Hamas and other groups” in reference to the hostages. According to the U.N., the passed resolution “does not condemn Hamas or make any specific reference to the extremist group.” 

The U.N. General Assembly vote on the cease-fire resolution is nonbinding and followed attempts by the U.N. Security Council to pass a binding resolution, which the U.S. vetoed. As of Dec. 18, the U.S. has used its Security Council veto 45 times since 1945 to protect Israel from critical resolutions.  

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
3 minute read

As US universities struggle with the Israel-Hamas war, what's happening on campuses around the world?

Nearly immediately after Hamas’ brutal attack on Oct. 7 and Israel’s relentless bombing of the Gaza Strip that followed, turmoil erupted on college campuses across the United States. 

There were tense, dueling protests at Columbia. A pro-Palestinian letter from Harvard campus groups that led to the doxxing of several students. And the suspension or deactivation of on-campus chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine.

“Campus political activism has been a famed part of American political life. And with the U.S.’s relationship with Israel and the conflict, people are going to have strong opinions on it,” said Sarah McLaughlin, senior scholar of global expression at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. 

Although the current discourse in American higher learning is especially contentious, this dynamic is not unique to the United States, McLaughlin says. Battles surrounding free speech are playing out at universities in Europe, as well as European society more generally. 

Blue Marble spoke with McLaughlin about what’s happening on college campuses, what U.S. university presidents got right in their testimony before the House, and how lawmakers and students interact here and abroad.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Can you describe what you see happening on U.S. college campuses surrounding the Israel-Hamas war? Specifically statements being issued, demonstrations, and crackdowns on those things.

Public universities are bound by the First Amendment, so they can’t censor speech that is protected by the First Amendment. Private universities, however, have slightly different obligations. I think what we’re seeing is a breakdown of how this is going to be handled on private versus public universities. Especially over the past week, there has been immense pressure on elite private universities to do something about what some people deem as calls for genocide … pressure to crack down on speech about Israel and Palestine that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment. 

We’ve seen a lot of pressure on Students for Justice in Palestine chapters. Brandeis University, for example, derecognized its chapter. And Columbia University announced that they’re going to look at their conduct policies to crack down on speech that supports violence in any manner


The Overview newsletter

The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.

 

How would you compare this to campuses abroad? You alluded to the hearings with the university presidents. Does this situation feel uniquely American?

I would not say this is a uniquely American phenomenon. Especially in the U.K., I’m seeing the same questions: “Should we allow this student group that advocates for Palestine? Should we have planned lectures that are going to get into uncomfortable territory about Israel and Palestine?”

The difference that I see is that the U.S. has First Amendment protections that European countries don’t. To understand what’s happening on campuses in free countries — probably Europe, we’re talking about — you have to look at the broader speech restrictions that are going on right now, because not all of it is just a speech restriction on campus. A lot of it is broader legal restrictions on society in general in European countries. They’re not going to have the First Amendment protections we do for really controversial speech about issues like Israel and Palestine.

Estonia, for example, recently arrested people under their hate speech law for shouting, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” In France, the interior minister initially banned all pro-Palestine protests. In the U.K., [former Home Secretary] Suella Braverman was saying that police need to look into people who are waving Palestinian flags because it might be criminal in some contexts. 

A lot of the, I guess you call them “cancel culture questions” about hosting Palestinian speakers, having Palestinian art, we’re seeing that come up a lot in Germany, in France, in the U.K.

What was your general reaction to the hearings? 

I want to note that the university presidents were right to say that context matters. It’s not always the best or easiest answer to hear, but the reality is when you’re looking at questions of true threats or incitement, context is extremely important to determine whether speech is or is not protected. We’re seeing a lot of blurring of all political speech into a call for a genocide or a true threat. We need to do better explaining how some speech can be upsetting, can even talk about violence and genocide, but not be unprotected expression. 

What’s frustrating from my point of view, especially as someone who researches and writes about global free speech issues, is we’re seeing what looks like a push to ban hate speech on campus. Anyone who spends a little bit of time looking into what that actually results in might be alarmed. Even the people who are advocating for it might not be pleased to find that the views they espouse might be considered hate speech. 

A lot of times pushes for hate speech bans will backfire. It’s not just necessarily going to be students who are advocating for what can be considered extremely strongly held views about Israel. It might be what people say about trans issues, what people say about abortion, what people say about policing. You can’t cabin hate speech to just one point of view. It never works that way.

When you look at it in a global context, when people have the ability to use hate speech laws, they very often tend to use it to silence dissenters, to crack down, especially in unfree countries, on their own critics. It’s not some simple question of “This is hate speech, this isn’t.” It doesn’t work that way. And people should not expect it to work that way on campuses right now.

U.S. lawmakers seem particularly focused on college students and campuses when it comes to free speech. Do you see the same dynamic between lawmakers and students in other countries? 

When it comes to lawmakers and this issue more generally, I do think there is a lot of attention on it, especially in countries like France and Germany. And some of that is those countries’ histories. They have a vested interest in ensuring that they don’t appear to be unaware or unresponsive to their own histories with the issues of antisemitism. So I understand why it is a major focus for lawmakers there. But I would contest that they’re doing this the wrong way. 

If you look in Europe, you can see that these rules on hate speech have done very little to eliminate the vocal parts of European communities that are very openly antisemitic. You can’t legislate or conduct-code these things away. I think universities are about to find that out, and I hope they don’t.

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
5 minute read

Why a rabbi decided to mourn with his Muslim neighbors

When Rabbi Hody Nemes heard about the murder of 6-year-old Wadea Al-Fayoume, he was horrified. Less than 24 hours later, he was on his way to the funeral. “I have a neighbor who’s an Afghan Muslim. And I walked across the lawn after the funeral and just told him how much I felt for him and how fearful I imagined he must feel,” Nemes told Blue Marble. “We shared a moment of connection that I think anyone can do. Anyone can go talk to their neighbors, to listen and to spread a little bit of light.”

'Start with that human feeling': Interfaith friendship on campus

Acts of antisemitism and Islamophobia have increased on U.S. college campuses since Oct. 7. At Syracuse University, Imam Amir Durić and Rabbi Ethan Bair are trying to lead the way by modeling, rather than mirroring, what is happening in the world.  “It is important to start with that human feeling,” Durić told Blue Marble. “If you suffer, [the] least I can do is to stand with you, to be in solidarity, and to show my support. And then I hope that you can do the same for me.”

'I make art so the world doesn't forget the girls of Afghanistan'

Before the Taliban came into power in 2021, 23-year-old artist Atena Soltani supported herself financially through art projects. Unable to have a normal life in Afghanistan under Taliban rule, she moved to Italy. Now, she transforms her challenges and concerns for girls living in Afghanistan into sketches. "I want people to understand that girls in Afghanistan don't have any human rights," she said. "I want to be a voice of protest against the silence of the world through my artworks."

Here's what you can read to better understand the Israel-Hamas war

Understanding the Israel-Hamas war is difficult, and social media isn’t always helpful, clear, accurate, or well sourced. We compiled five expert lists of recommended reading from diverse authors, viewpoints, and backgrounds to help explain the history, context, and experiences shaping the war.

Financial Times

Published on Oct. 9 , just days after Hamas’  Oct. 7 attack, this list by Financial Times editor Roula Khalaf is a selection of books recommended by Financial Times specialists, including:

A portrait of Netanyahu’s combative politics and his relationship with Palestinians and the two-state solution

A graphic novel that offers a nonfiction account of Israel’s 1956 killing of over 100 Palestinians in Rafah following armed Palestinian raids. Sacco’s illustrations make tangible the Gaza Strip’s isolation.

Explores the origin and evolution of Hamas and its  rivalry with other Palestinian political organizations

A look at why Palestinians did not get their own state as regional colonial rule collapsed during the 20th century. A nuanced analysis of how outside actors shaped Palestinians’ political futures, but the author – a Palestinian American historian – finds Palestinian leaders also bear responsibility. 

The Globe and Mail

This Canadian newspaper asked its foreign correspondents, reporters, and editors for their suggested reading to make sense of the history behind the Israel-Hamas war. Their list included:

A Palestinian American author and scholar explores sites of Palestinian memory through photography from Jean Mohr.

A child of Holocaust survivors, Hass was born in Jerusalem but stayed in Gaza for years. This book, released in 1996, chronicles her life.

An Israeli journalist explores how the Holocaust impacted the thinking of David Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin, and Nahum Goldmann and the formation of Israel.

This memoir tells the story of a Palestinian family forced to flee Jerusalem for the U.K. The family unknowingly moved to a predominantly Jewish suburb of London where Karmi wrestled with her sense of self and identity.


The Overview newsletter

The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.

 

Foreign Policy

Foreign Policy recently compiled a list designed to help readers understand the Israel-Hamas war, including these two books:

“In careful but compassionate prose, Roy, a political economist, chronicles the systematic immiseration of Gaza, the devastating consequences on the people trapped there, and the failed peace process that has enabled Hamas to endure and attract support.” — Stephen M. Walt, Foreign Policy columnist

“Elgindy served as an advisor to the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah on permanent status negotiations with Israel from 2004 to 2009 and thus had a front-row seat to Washington’s peacemaking efforts. His book provides a deeply researched historical examination of how U.S.-Palestinian relations shaped the peace process over the decades and contributed to the crisis of Palestinian leadership we see today.” —Jennifer Williams, Foreign Policy deputy editor

Middle East Institute

In 2022, the Middle East Institute’s book review editor shared recommended reading from books reviewed in The Middle East Journal, including these:

“Western readers hungry for didactic primers about Middle East politics confront bookshelves of forgettable volumes. What makes this offering notable is that the authors themselves are activists from the region and write as sensitive insiders rather than as foreign journalists or retired diplomats penning yet another screed.” —Sean Yom, Temple University

“Fred Hof, a retired military officer and experienced Middle East negotiator, tells the story of the last effort to reach an Israel-Syria peace agreement.” —Daniel Kurtzer, Princeton University

American Enterprise Institute

A former CIA officer turned Middle East scholar at AEI, Kenneth Pollack recommended the best books on Middle East military history, including:

“…Dupuy extensively interviewed nearly all of the major political and military leaders on both sides of every war … it is why his book remains the single best work on the subject and the foundation on which all later histories rest.”

Adan was a senior military official in the war. Pollack recommends this book as “...an outstanding first-hand account … Adan’s book is also distinguished by his ruthless honesty in pointing out his own mistakes as well as those of the larger Israel Defense Forces.”

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
3 minute read

What is a 'humanitarian pause' and how is it different from a 'cease-fire'?

Two resolutions to stop the Israel-Hamas war were vetoed by the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday.

The U.S.-backed resolution called for a “humanitarian pause” in the besieged Gaza Strip. The pause would allow for the delivery of essential goods like food, water, medical supplies, and fuel into the region. 

Other council members noted that a pause is not the same thing as a cease-fire, which is supported by U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres among others.

According to the U.N., a “humanitarian pause” is a “temporary cessation of hostilities” so that humanitarian aid can be carried out. A pause usually lasts for a defined period — it could be as short as a few hours — and occurs in a specific area.

A “cease-fire,” by contrast, is intended as a long-term cessation of fighting with the aim to “allow parties to engage in dialogue, including the possibility of reaching a permanent political settlement.”

On Friday, the U.N. General Assembly is expected to vote on an Arab states-backed resolution that calls for an immediate cease-fire.

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
1 minute read

'Peace is possible'

"Only last week we were in Jerusalem, in the Dead Sea together, hundreds of Israeli and Palestinian women calling the leaders of both sides to begin negotiations before things escalated. We cannot live like this anymore. We deserve peace. All of us in this region." -Dr. Yael Braudo-Bahat, Women Wage Peace

Editor's note: On November 13, it was reported that Israeli officials had notified peace activist Vivian Silver's family that she had been killed in the Oct. 7 attack on Israel, not held hostage in Gaza as originally believed.

Subscribe to