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.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS