The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) held a televised campaign presentation last Saturday as part of the run-up to its chairmanship election. Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) spent about an hour attacking the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and expressing their views. But for issues that are truly relevant to the election, only the party's assets and the ethnic issue were mentioned.
For the KMT's party assets, Ma suggested respecting the judiciary, while Wang suggested protecting the assets with the blue camp's majority in the legislature. As for the ethnic issue, Ma said that he was conceived in Taiwan, delivered in Hong Kong and raised back in Taiwan. Therefore, if he won the chairmanship, the KMT would not become a party only for Mainlanders. Wang said that he opposed ethnic divisions and accused the DPP of aggravating the ethnic divide.
On the surface, Wang enjoys an advantage since he is backed by most of the blue camp's legislators and the KMT's Central Standing Committee members, who have numerous "vote captains" across the nation. He also claims to respect KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰), saying that he would not have run for the post if Lien ran for re-election. But Ma has not shown unwavering support for Lien or protecting the party's assets. Obviously, it was natural for Lien to ally himself with Wang.
Most importantly, if Wang is elected, he will be willing to take over everything passed on to him by Lien. As for Ma, who has a "Teflon man" reputation, it is hard to predict whether he would do so. The KMT does not have a healthy internal accounting system. Even a god could not figure out the details of its accounts. Under such circumstances, Lien would certainly prefer Wang to Ma. His secret assistance to Wang through party affairs can be expected.
Indeed, lawmakers and Central Standing Committee members have many vote captains. But whether they will help Wang is questionable, because it is difficult to transfer their support to him. The power of Lien's administrative system is also questionable, as it is difficult to force party members to vote for Wang. Thus, the key lies in the factors that truly influence the election results -- the ethnic issue and the candidates' images.
Although Lien is a banshan, (Taiwanese with mainland background), he has been supported by the Mainlanders, leading Wang to believe that he will also gain their support by strictly following Lien's line. But their situations are quite different. The Mainlanders are clear that after the democratization of Taiwan, they may lose their power if they do not "use the Taiwanese to restrain the Taiwanese," and Lien is their best tool. From his appointment as chairman in 2000 to last year's presidential election, they consolidated themselves to support Lien.
But the Mainlanders only support Lien when there is no competition from other Mainlanders. The 2000 presidential election was an example of this. At that time, almost all Mainlander leaders supported Lien while grass-roots Mainlanders supported James Soong (宋楚瑜) -- because Soong is a "pure" Mainlander, and Lien is only half.
Wang is facing the same problem today. If no candidate has close Mainlander ties, then he can win their support. But since Ma does, it is impossible for Wang to gain the Mainlanders' support.
The Taiwanese people are able to support Mainlander candidates. But only a few Mainlanders are able to support Taiwanese candidates. Obviously, the July 16 election will be unfavorable to Wang, unless Taiwanese can generate a sense of crisis in the face of the united Mainlanders.
Chen Mao-hsiung is a professor in the department of electrical engineering at National Sun Yat-sen University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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