Three years ago the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) swept back to power, with President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) at the helm, claiming yet another resounding victory following its victory in the legislative elections earlier that year.
In a very short period of time the party bounced back from the depths of opposition to the height of majority government, with the kind of victory that comes but once in a generation. However, what goes up must come down. Since those heady days, the party has suffered a string of defeats in elections and by-elections, major and minor. That things have come to this does not bode well for a governing party, its troops having been subjected to little short of a rout.
In elections, of course, victory is never assured, and one has to accept the occasional defeat. It must be difficult to deal with the relentless nature of the losses, however. After every defeat the party conducts a review and takes disciplinary action, not least to show its supporters that it is taking steps to improve. The exasperating thing is that no matter how much it reflect on its defeats, no matter how much it tries to come up with a remedy, the situation remains the same, and it still loses almost every election.
The KMT’s successive defeats don’t concern me very much, although I do find myself feeling bitterly frustrated and disappointed. Why? Because I see things happening that shouldn’t be, I see people taking the wrong approach and the wrong attitude, employing ill-advised policies. I see this happening again and again, but I know that if I make the smallest suggestion, these people will turn a deaf ear to it.
For a very long time now, I have been publishing articles critical of the KMT, but they have never been taken seriously. These people won’t be told, and they won’t listen or be held to anything. They are good at meting out criticism internally, but are rarely frank with the outside world, for fear this would compromise their interests.
Although quite used to this kind of controlling behavior, I find it frustrating nonetheless when comments made in all sincerity are simply sneered at or brushed off with derision.
In this day and age, if the public gives a political party another shot at government, it doesn’t matter how hard it works or how much effort it puts in, it is expected to produce the goods. If it doesn’t, it won’t get the votes. This is simply how it is. Beating on about good intentions is a waste of breath, a mug’s game.
The KMT is home to a number of narrow-minded, cliquey, talentless, obsequious individuals who are more concerned about themselves than anyone else, and clueless about what to do next. Of course people do see this, but there is a reluctance to address the situation, as they are unwilling to challenge authority and speak up on behalf of the public. How could one expect such a party to be up for the fight? And several by-elections later, is the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) any more aware of what the public wants? It’s time to capitalize on the situation, and use the public’s frustration.
The DPP at the moment has several heavyweights in its ranks. Despite the considerable rivalry between them, they will always settle on one individual when faced with a serious challenger at elections, so that the party always ends up fielding a strong candidate. In the end it doesn’t really matter whether that candidate actually wins or loses, in the sense that this has helped the party develop. In addition, next time it might be their own turn. Yes, it must be difficult, and at times bitterly disappointing. Yes, they might begrudge letting an opportunity slip through their fingers. The point is, they wouldn’t pull the party back for the sake of their own ambition. They suspect that their patience will pay off in the long run. This is the way that the DPP has always operated, and it’s unlikely to change anytime soon.
Although the KMT has taken quite a battering in the polls, it is not yet beyond salvation. If its future success lies in the balance, this balance pivots on whether it can discover which way public opinion is headed, whether it can find out what it is the public wants and whether it has the courage to reinvent itself. It also has to remember that no individual is the measure of victory, that no individual is the sole architect of success, and that no individual can expect Lady Luck to shine on them. If the party can do this, will it have a future? That is for the electorate to decide, for history to record. In the end, the wheat shall be sorted from the chaff.
Senior members of the KMT should take note: Take a cold, hard look, cultivate more talent, refrain from your cliquey ways, embrace transparency and look to a brighter future.
Li Hua-chiu is a researcher with the National Policy Foundation.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US