New Taipei City Mayor Eric Chu (朱立倫) yesterday took over as Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman, facing a tough challenge of reforming the party if he wants to prove his presidential potential.
The KMT’s crushing defeat in the Nov. 29 elections last year pushed Chu into taking on the chairmanship to keep his hopes alive of running for the presidency in 2020, since he has ruled out taking part in next year’s election. If the party cannot reshape itself to regain the public support it has lost, Chu’s electoral chances appear very slim.
Chu has made bold promises on a wide variety of issues, ranging from turning the KMT into an “internally created party” to make it less ideologically motivated and more open to influence from elected politicians, to bringing transparency to the party’s finances and assets, to returning its “stolen” assets to the nation.
He has also addressed constitutional reform issues by proposing changing the quasi-presidential system of government to a parliamentary one, lowering the voting age from 20 to 18, revamping the legislative electoral system to one based on proportional representation that would give small parties a better chance of winning seats and redirecting the policies of President — and former KMT chairman — Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration to better meet public demand.
These suggestions show that Chu is not tone-deaf to social currents, but aside from the voting age suggestion, none of his other ideas have gained much traction in the party. The KMT’s old guard — led by Vice President Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) — have reacted most strongly to the party assets issue, asserting that all the assets had been legitimately obtained.
In the face of such intransigence, Chu’s reshuffling of KMT leadership posts hinted at a plan to replace most of the old guard. Of the six vice chairpersons appointed by Ma, Chu has kept only former Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) and former Chiayi mayor Huang Min-hui (黃敏惠). Hau was among the few in the party’s leadership circle who have said the KMT should renounce its asserts, which he described as a “magic ring.”
However, seniority and rank have traditionally dominated the KMT’s internal process, with little tolerance shown for anything less than a united front. In the six party leadership elections since 2000, only two resembled a real contest — in 2005 and 2007. In the others, there was only a single candidate for chairman — former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) in 2000, Ma in 2009 and 2013, and Chu this year — showing that the KMT remains rooted in its authoritarian past, fearful of challenges posed to its leadership.
That authoritarian legacy is also reflected in the undemocratic methods the party uses to select its legislator-at-large candidates or the members of the Evaluation and Discipline Committee, which allows the leadership circle to consolidate power by handpicking the party members they prefer for the posts and discouraging party members from engaging in internal discussion.
Chu is starting off as KMT chairman from a “weakened” position because Ma still controls the administrative resources the party needs to impose its policies. However, his relatively high popularity among the general public could help him establish a framework to push his reform proposals.
Both the KMT and Chu are poised at a fateful juncture. Chu’s ability to lead the party to democratize its internal workings — something Ma repeatedly promised to do, but failed — will be crucial not just for the party’s political survival, but for his own political career.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers