Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
He is the key to the KMT's future, for without superstar Ma, the KMT would become an empty shell, and even its legitimacy as a party might come into question. As a result, Ma had no choice but to contest the KMT chairmanship election.
Although not the sole determinant, Ma's Mainlander origins were a crucial factor contributing to his overwhelming victory over Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平). Given this "moral imperative," no one was able to hold back Ma's ambitions, and the triumvirate of Wang, outgoing KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰), and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜), pales beside Ma's overwhelming presence. That's why Ma was able to garner more than 70 percent of the vote.
Ma's victory was simply a necessary step arranged by the party toward winning the 2008 presidential election. After all, the KMT's ultimate goal is to reclaim power. Such is their impatience that when the dust had barely settled from the election, the blue-camp was already setting up Ma as their 2008 candidate. This kind of myth-making is likely to prove to be Ma's Achilles heel.
There are two myths being built around Ma.
First, because the votes Ma garnered in the election were not all from Mainlanders -- since 70 percent is much larger than the proportion of Mainlanders in the party -- some say this indicates that Ma's appeal has crossed the ethnic divide. But has it? Let us consider the issue from Wang's perspective. Prior to the election, the Wang camp predicted that it could rely on the veterans' vote (180,000) and that of their families, accounting for a solid 500,000 votes.
After the election, Wang told American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Douglas Paal that the KMT only has slightly more than 700,000 members, considerably less that the 1.04 million it had previously claimed. He said Ma's votes came primarily from Mainlanders and that members with a localization bent had either failed to vote or left the party. This suggestion echoes former president Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) belief that Wang's pro-China stance caused many of his supporters to pull back.
In fact, the KMT keeps track of voter information and could break the figures down by ethnic group. But Ma would not want to do this, and if he did, he certainly would not make the information public. Fortunately, we can draw our information from other sources, and anecdotal and media evidence suggests that Mainlanders came out to vote in force. Could Ma have won without this source of support?
The other myth is that support for Ma has crossed the Chuoshui River, the nominal line separating northern Taiwan from the south. This suggests that Ma not only had an overwhelming victory in the north, in places such as Taipei City, Taipei County and Taoyuan County, but also led by a landslide (more than 80 percent) in the south.
Kaohsiung County's Mainlander strongholds, such as Fengshan (
Ma's supporters do not wish to look at the facts. Instead, they are intent on building a mythic web around him, showering him with glory and making an early start on his campaign for the 2008 election.
Chin Heng-wei is a political commentator based in Taipei.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS