President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) yesterday officially resigned as chairman of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to take responsibility for the party’s crushing defeat in Saturday’s elections.
The guessing game has started on who will be elected as the new party leader, with speculation rife among political observers over the reshuffle of power within the party and conjecture as to how the new lineup may affect the party’s prospects in the 2016 presidential election. However, whoever KMT members decide to elect as their new leader is their business; after all, revitalizing the party’s standing among Taiwanese does not depend so much on who is elected, but what mindset the new leader will bring to the helm of the party.
Following the KMT’s trouncing, several party heavyweights have uttered words of humility, acknowledging that “the elections remind us that those in power should listen humbly” and that “our reforms have yet to meet the expectations of the people.”
While many hope that the KMT will now engage in introspection and aspire to people’s expectations, flabbergasting comments from other prominent pan-blue figures suggest that those in the KMT’s top echelons still just do not get it, remaining ingrained in their old mindset and out of touch with the masses.
One example was the remarks by Greater Taichung Mayor Jason Hu (胡志強), who lost his seat on Saturday.
Attributing the KMT’s loss to the younger generation, Hu said: “Young people take for granted what they are given and they think they are owed what they long for. If you give them an iPhone 5, they are still mad at you because you did not give them an iPhone 6.”
Then there was talk-show host Sisy Chen (陳文茜), perceived to be close with the KMT’s top brass, who launched a volley of criticism in the wake of the elections, berating the electoral result as a victory for those aligned with the Sunflower movement, “which is to mean the country is heading toward wicked democracy and beyond redemption.”
These remarks are reminiscent of former vice president Lien Chan’s (連戰) when he deemed young people participating in the Sunflower movement — an expression of their concerns about jobs, anxiety over their futures being increasingly dictated by China — as people who “cause trouble” and have their moral judgements misled and distorted by de-Sinicized textbooks.
The remarks are also reminiscent of former premier Hau Pei-tsun (郝柏村), whose criticism of “Japanization” (皇民化) managed only to aggravate ethnic divides and offend the majority of the population.
Comments such as those by Hu and Chen only go to show how they are still stuck in the mindset of seeing things through “colored” lenses, without grasping the fact that young people, as shown through the election results, have already transcended the blue/green and ethnic divides that have long undermined the nation’s progress.
While Hu, Chen and the like may wish to talk down to young people and dismiss their actions, a new civil force is emerging in which the youngsters, no longer acting indifferently toward things taking place around them, are demanding changes be made to improve their future.
It is for this reason that Democratic Progressive Party Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) is not grinning from ear to ear, because she is fully aware that her party’s election victory was not achieved on its own merits, but rode on the wave of young people’s engagement in public affairs, who have shed their political apathy and are now taking a stand.
In the same light, if the KMT continues with its age-old mindset and remains detached from the social consensus that is brewing among the public, particularly the young, whoever is to take the helm of the party will have a hard time revitalizing the party’s standing in the eyes of Taiwanese.
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