THE KMT IS holding its 16th national congress today. After losing the presidential election and political power last year, the KMT passed a resolution for reforms and vowed to "start from scratch" again. After a year, the "reforms" have not produced particularly impressive results. This is evident in the zeal of various factions vying for seats in the party's central committee.
A total of 210 central committee seats will be up for grabs at the 16th national congress. According to the KMT's precedent, the party chairman must nominate a full block of 210 candidates and there is opportunity for another 210 candidates to run on their own initiative by starting signature drives.
A "limited vote" method is adopted for the election, in which each representative can vote for a maximum of 105 out of 400-plus candidates. The votes will be cast tomorrow afternoon and, according to the number of votes won, 210 central committee members and another 105 replacements will be elected.
Taiwan's various civic organizations are required to use either "block vote" or "limited vote" systems for their internal elections. These systems are a major factor behind "vote-allocation" and "vote-swapping" activities during those elections.
Even the DPP's various internal elections are not spared. Simple vote-allocation and vote-swapping activities can perhaps be viewed as a method to test rallying and mobilization capacities in small organizations. However, more often than not, inappropriate maneuvers such as treating voters to banquets, gift-giving and even bribery become inevitable. This was the case in the KMT's past internal elections. After the "reforms", things do not look much better at the party's 16th national congress.
Even though the KMT has vowed repeatedly to actualize "internal democracy", this time the central committee election remains the same old show, with the chairman nominating an entire block of candidates
It seems like a time-warp back to an authoritarian era. Given that around 30 percent of the candidates fielded by the party headquarters lost the elections during the party's 14th and 15th congresses, it will be interesting to see how many of the party-nominated candidates will be elected this time around.
According to its new rules for the nomination of overseas legislators and legislators-at-large, a candidate's nomination will be canceled if half of the central committee members object to it. Thus, the central committee members will see their value rise, along with the power to approve or reject nominations for overseas legislators and legislators-at-large. Those who want to be nominated for legislator-at-large candidacies will also want to elbow their way into the central committee so that they can maneuver for votes in advance.
Many legislators are running in the central committee election this time. They can be expected to win more than one-fourth of the committee seats. In the future, they will certainly win even more seats in the Central Standing Committee. On a positive side, this represents a structural change in the KMT's power center, which will further lead to a transformation in the party's direction.
One worrisome point, however, is the uneven quality of the KMT's legislators. In the future, as legislators invade the core of power en masse and good-quality former government officials gradually step down, the KMT's overall image and its policy-making ability will come under another test. The 16th party congress may be a turning point in determining whether the century-old shop called the KMT will shine once again.
Wang Yeh-lih is a professor of political science at Tunghai University.
Translated by Francis Huang
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers