It is curious and surprising that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus is still obstinately toeing the line President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) sets — a lame duck with only months left in his second term of presidency — and thereby rubbing the public the wrong way and hurting its electoral prospects.
What it also inidicates is the powerlessness of KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫).
A few days after Chu said he supported calling an extraordinary legislative session, the KMT caucus whip on Monday said that most KMT lawmakers were against the idea and resolved yesterday that there would not be an extraordinary session.
Chu denied that it was a slap in his face, saying he had stated that he would respect the caucus’ decision. However, what was the role of the party as a whole in the matter? Was there no party-wide, or at least top-echelon-wide, discussion?
Maybe there was one, just not with Chu.
As recent reports cited “top government-party officials” as saying, allowing both the new and the old curriculum guidelines is “Ma’s bottom line” (despite the fact that it is actually not legally feasible for new and old “guidelines” — rather than textbooks — to be simultaneously effective).
It would seem to support what Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), in his loose-cannon style of talking, said about Minister of Education Wu Se-hwa (吳思華) being someone’s — presumably Ma’s — “hatchet man.”
The KMT caucus probably cannot be blamed for bypassing the KMT chairman and following the orders of an outgoing president. After all, the KMT now has a chairman who had been expected to play, but is not playing, an essential role in the presidential election campaign — namely running as the presidential candidate — and instead wound up stuck with a presidential candidate widely perceived, even among KMT legislators and members, to be a B-list politician and predicted to be an also-ran in next year’s election.
It was Chu who refused to rise to the occasion when the party practically begged him to represent it in the coming election.
He let go that opportunity, just as Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), another party heavyweight, did.
However, unlike Chu, Wang is in his seventies.
If a “naked retirement” is what Wang is hoping for, staying above the fray might not be a bad idea, and that is exactly what he implied yesterday by saying that he is “without a presupposed stance [about the curriculum controversy]” and would only “follow the system.”
Chu is said to be the party’s rising star, but his star is falling and will continue to fall with his inaction.
As New Taipei City mayor, he secured a second term only by the narrowest of margins in last year’s local elections. Since his re-election, the Formosa Fun Coast (八仙海岸) fire and the allegations that city officials had taken bribes when conducting safety inspections at the water park, have seriously harmed his image as a competent leader. Compounding the damage is the detention of former New Taipei City deputy mayor Hsu Chih-chien (許志堅) on corruption charges.
He will almost certainly be forced to resign as KMT chairman if the party loses the election next year, which is highly likely.
Chu could take a responsible stance in his capacity of party helmsman to help mitigate the protesting students’ furor, a move that could save his political life, which he must surely want to continue after stepping down as chairman.
However, so far he has made no such attempt; instead, he is just another party member clinging to the coat-tails of Ma’s power structure — the days of which are numbered.
During the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum’s third leadership summit on Aug. 31, US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun said that the US wants to partner with the other members of the Quadrilaterial Security Dialogue — Australia, India and Japan — to establish an organization similar to NATO, to “respond to ... any potential challenge from China.” He said that the US’ purpose is to work with these nations and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region to “create a critical mass around the shared values and interest of those parties,” and possibly attract more countries to establish an alliance comparable to
On August 24, 2020, the US Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, made an important statement: “The Pentagon is Prepared for China.” Going forward, how might the Department of Defense team up with Taiwan to make itself even more prepared? No American wants to deter the next war by a paper-thin margin, and no one appreciates the value of strategic overmatch more than the war planners at the Pentagon. When the stakes are this high, you can bet they want to be super ready. In recent months, we have witnessed a veritable flood of high-level statements from US government leaders on
Over the past year, the world has observed what many of us in the US Congress have warned about for years: The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is an unreliable partner intent on chasing its ambitions to be the world’s superpower at the expense of its people, its partners and the international community at large. In December last year, the CCP had evidence that a new strain of the coronavirus was infecting and killing Chinese citizens at an alarming rate. Their response was to censor medical professionals and lie to their own people out of fear of tarnishing China’s global image, and
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become