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.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS