Taiwan will hold its nine-in-one elections on Nov. 28. By the time voters head to the polls, they will have once again witnessed the familiar theater of local democracy: the sea of flags and posters, candidates shaking hands in neighborhood markets, and speeches promising safer roads and more efficient government.
It will look like every other local election — but it is not.
For decades, Taiwan’s municipal and county elections have been contests over everyday governance. Voters judged candidates by their ability to improve daily life and make their communities more livable.
Those responsibilities remain essential. However, the next four years will unfold under circumstances unlike any Taiwan has experienced in generations.
Every leader elected in November — from special municipality mayors and county magistrates to township administrators and borough chiefs — will serve a term overlapping with what many regional defense analysts regard as the highest-risk window for Beijing’s aggression toward Taiwan.
Frontline of national survival
The definition of local competence has therefore fundamentally shifted. Voters must no longer ask only what an official intends to do over a standard four-year term. We must demand a rolling, six-month ledger of how they are readying their jurisdictions to withstand external duress.
Local government is no longer merely local, it is the frontline infrastructure of national survival.
This does not mean voters should discount municipal issues such as urban planning or transit. Rather, they must judge whether candidates possess the administrative discipline to transform effective daily governance into societal resilience.
Consequently, candidates at every tier of the ballot should be judged by an additional, measurable standard. Do they possess the administrative discipline required to convert daily governance into civil defense?
If primary communications fail, can township command centers continue operating? Are municipal emergency services prepared for prolonged energy or logistics disruptions? Can local governments maintain public trust when disinformation spreads faster than official information?
Taipei the anchor
These are no longer hypothetical exercises for defense ministries. They are the statutory responsibilities of local executives.
National resilience is not a centralized asset, it is a distributed network built through the combined operational durability of every city, county, and township. Taipei provides the clearest illustration of why this standard must dominate the ballot.
As the capital, Taipei is more than the seat of government, it is the nation’s psychological anchor. In a severe gray-zone or blockade scenario, the disruption of its metro system and municipal networks would be weaponized to induce widespread panic.
If the capital holds, the country holds. The mayor of Taipei is not a commander-in-chief, yet in a national crisis the office holder becomes the custodian of civic endurance — a role demanding an attribute rarely debated on the campaign trail: institutional crisis competence.
This competence begins long before a crisis arrives and is embedded in how a city governs every ordinary day.
Consider the systemic challenges facing Taiwan’s major cities, such as housing affordability. In Taipei, prohibitive housing prices continue to drive away young talent.
Bureaucratic health
This is no longer merely an economic grievance, it is a structural vulnerability, steadily hollowing out the workforce required for an emergency response.
Similarly, chronic deficiencies in flood prevention, street sanitation, infrastructure renewal, and administrative oversight are more than cosmetic embarrassments. They are diagnostic indicators of bureaucratic health.
If a municipal government or county magistrate struggles to clear drainage systems, maintain power grids, or enforce basic building codes during normal times, citizens cannot reasonably expect the same administration to coordinate emergency logistics, manage mass casualties, or maintain public order under external duress.
Therefore, a vague four-year campaign promise is no longer a sufficient mandate. Voters should demand concrete, transparent benchmarks that can be independently verified throughout a candidate’s term.
Have emergency communication systems been tested under blackout conditions? Have backup power systems for hospitals and critical water facilities been fully tested under emergency conditions?
Credible plan
These are the kinds of measurable administrative actions that reveal whether a government is genuinely preparing its community rather than merely talking about resilience.
In past elections, municipal competence meant making daily life more convenient. In this election, competence must mean making society survivable. Housing, infrastructure, public utilities, and civil defense can no longer be separated into distinct policy silos. Together they determine how well Taiwan can withstand external pressure.
When voters step into polling stations in November, they must leave behind the parochial assumptions of the past. The quality of local governance now carries immediate national consequences.
Every candidate, from mayoral hopeful to borough chief, should be judged not only by what they promise to build. They must also understand the challenges Taiwan faces and whether they have a credible plan to keep their communities functioning if Taiwan faces its greatest historical test.
John Cheng is a retired businessman from Hong Kong who lives in Taiwan and is the author of “Taiwan Is Taiwan.”
