Despite winning the presidential election, the results were a surprising blow to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), and that is why President and KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has vowed party reform to bring about change in preparation for future elections. That is precisely what is needed, but the question is where it should start.
Judging from what we have seen before and after the election, the KMT does not seem to understand that the problem is its closeness to big business. To use Western political terminology, the KMT is a right-wing party. During the election campaign, Ma and his team repeatedly touted GDP growth as a political achievement, although the vast majority of the public did not feel this growth at all.
National wealth may have increased, but because of the uneven distribution, only a very small minority has been invited to the party. The rest have to make do with leftovers. The Ma administration knew, of course, that it could not afford to completely ignore the wealth gap, which is why it threw a few crumbs to voters prior to the election, such as the luxury tax and childcare subsidies. Looking at the bigger picture, however, that is nothing but trivial vote-buying.
Ideology lies at the core of a political party’s values; it might even be called a party’s soul. In more mature Western democracies, the major political parties are either center-left or center-right. This is the only kind of political party that is capable of caring for the interests of the majority.
In a one person, one vote system, it is difficult for a government that cares only for the well-being of the rich to remain in power. HTC chairwoman Cher Wang (王雪紅) and Hon Hai Group chairman Terry Gou (郭台銘) also have but one vote, so governance must be based on ideology to mobilize a majority of voters.
The KMT once followed a diametrically opposed ideology. One of the principles embodied in Sun Yat-sen’s (孫逸仙) Three Principles of the People (三民主義) concerns people’s livelihood, advocating equal land ownership and control of resources — both of which are typical leftist ideas. This was later partially implemented by Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son, Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國). It is not very strange that Chiang Ching-kuo, deeply influenced by socialism after having spent more than a decade in the Soviet Union as a young man, would do so, but his father’s social policy was also left-leaning despite his political opposition to communism.
With the ascent of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), this ideology became increasingly blurred. None of the currently active KMT politicians, be it President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), former KMT secretary-general King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) or premier-designate Sean Chen (陳冲), got to where they are because they sympathize with the working man. This is just as true of the party’s legislative caucus as of its top leadership. Any party in the West, whether on the left or on the right, has a left wing that pays close attention to the welfare of disadvantaged groups.
Sadly, the KMT is sorely lacking in left-wing legislators. This setup makes it very difficult to pass social legislation. The recently passed amendment to the Employment Service Act (就業服務法) is a good example, in which the pan-blue legislators extended the period that foreign workers are allowed to remain in Taiwan. There are both pros and cons to this decision, but if there had been left-leaning politicians, they would not have let this amendment through without putting up a fight.
The reason the KMT managed to capture almost 7 million votes despite its pro-business stance is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is not a left-wing party either, as former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) proved during his eight years in office. Although there are factions within the party, the New Tide faction, which claimed to be left-leaning, has been exposed for its scheming and plotting.
In her election campaign, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) only focused on a “Taiwan consensus” opposed to the so-called “1992 consensus,” thus continuing to play the independence-unification game. How could she expect the salaried class to identify with that approach?
The KMT’s most urgent task is to find its way back to the party spirit it lost. If Ma really cares about renewal, he should call a party congress to hold a thorough and all-encompassing discussion about the party’s future direction. If he did, democracy in Taiwan would enter another level where it does not only involve electing politicians. Is this within the capabilities of the KMT, which no longer knows the meaning of “left-wing”?
Huang Juei-min is a law professor at Providence University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with