The Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) 19th national congress was conducted in a peculiar manner. To evade the ever-present shoe-throwing protesters, the venue was changed to Greater Taichung’s remote Wuci District (梧棲) and Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) — a political enemy to some in the party — was warmly welcomed and supported by the media and party delegates, receiving more attention than President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
Were it not for the passage of a proposal to change the KMT’s charter so that “the [nation’s] president shall, as a matter of course, double as party chairman,” Ma, who is also the KMT chairman, would have had a rotten time at the congress.
Was this change good for Ma? Perhaps he is afraid that a big loss in the seven-in-one elections next year will make him a lame duck president and unless he holds on to the party chairmanship, he will lose all his power. With this change to the party’s charter, Ma will be able to remain chairman if the polls go badly.
However, everyone has seen through the president’s plan and polls show that more than 60 percent of the public oppose the change because it goes against the spirit of political accountability. The move means KMT members will bear the consequences of electoral defeat, instead of the chairman. How can a chairman who does not bear the responsibility for his party’s performance in elections continue to occupy his post with any dignity?
Having watched its leader make escape plans ahead of the elections, morale in the KMT is unlikely to improve and there is little doubt that the party will fare badly in next year’s polls. KMT members and supporters are not stupid — local strongmen will ignore the party leadership and consolidate their own nominations, campaigns and post-election situations.
Ma said the charter was changed to set up a new system of cooperation between the party and the government, not to serve individual interests or for personal gain. He also said it would not be appropriate to apply the new regulation to him, but he had to act for the good of future KMT heads of state. However, if a KMT president has no interest in doubling as party chairman — just like Ma did when he initially tried to avoid the chairmanship — the new rule will do the party a great disservice.
When he first became president, Ma felt the party should be kept separate from the state; it was only later that he started arguing that the KMT should assist the government. However, what contributions has the party made to government policy in the years Ma has doubled as party chairman? If he believes that it is so important to double as chairman, why is his administration responsible for such an underwhelming lack of achievements, and why are the Cabinet and the legislature going their separate ways? The issue is not how many leaders there are, but who the strongest is.
The irregularities in the Ma administration are the result of the preference for one strong leader. All major policies, such as the 12-year compulsory education system, abolishing conscription, instigating organizational reform and establishing “free economic pilot zones” were created by political appointees who were referencing the president’s election promises and statements. The problem is that, given Ma’s mediocrity and incompetence, any attempt to look to him for leadership is futile.
Judging from the urgency with which Ma had the KMT charter changed, it is clear that his power is waning. He clings to his presidential and party powers as if they were lifesavers, but he is clutching at straws. In the end, he will pay the price by seeing the KMT’s public approval rating drop further.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
RSS