As the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) changed its regulations to make it mandatory for a KMT president to double as party chairman, the question of whether President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) should serve as KMT chairman has once again become the nation’s hottest political topic.
There is no right or wrong answer to the question. Different answers can be made by assuming different decisionmaking modes.
With a vertical approach, there are three reasons for Ma to serve in both roles.
First, a well-supported successor to the president has yet to appear. A rash decision to elect a new party chairman would not help party unity.
Second, by doubling as party chairman, Ma is able to avoid becoming a lame-duck president and being further attacked by political rivals.
Third, some of Ma’s supporters believe that the real challenges are posed by KMT political heavyweights, who focus on him like tigers eyeing their prey. By serving as party chairman, he is able to consolidate his leadership, while the ruling party assists the government in its operations.
With a horizontal approach, there are three reasons for Ma to choose not to double as KMT chairman.
First, during the rest of his second term Ma can focus on the implementation of major policies and perform his duties well, which would help his legacy.
Second, Ma could cast off the restrictions imposed on him by the KMT to create more favorable conditions for the nation’s development without being burdened by the party.
Third, by not serving as KMT chairman, Ma could diversify political risk and cultivate a successor within the party.
Vertical thinking attempts to build consistency — requiring a logical, step by step plan, while horizontal thinking attempts to build inconsistency — requiring the creation of opportunities, thinking outside of the box and some luck.
A vertical thinking approach when everything is going smoothly and a horizontal approach when things get tough might be the best plan, because a giant leap may be necessary.
The KMT should consider this seriously because whether Ma should serve as president and party chairman is a big decision. The result will affect his historical status and the party’s future.
Kuo Chen-hero is an adjunct professor in the School of Business at Soochow University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing