It is considered a great taboo among soldiers to change generals just before a battle. Amazingly, with less than 100 days left before the presidential election, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is still fighting over who its presidential candidate should be. It is sad to see the 100-year-old party engulfed in such an internal power struggle.
The KMT’s presidential candidate, Deputy Legislative Speaker Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), had thrown her hat in the ring in the hope of attracting more worthy candidates, but she ended up being the only one. She then ran amok and lost the support of both the general public and those close to her, only to be stabbed in the back by other KMT politicians. It has been a great farce. After lying dormant for a long time, the deadly threats to the KMT have been laid bare for all to see.
The first threat is hypocritical plotting and scheming.
When the KMT was choosing its presidential candidate, the top choices either rejected the request, despite wanting to be nominated, decided to bide their time to see how things would develop, or feigned disinterest while working behind the scenes.
When Hung, a second or even a third choice, took to stage as the KMT’s candidate, party heavyweights panicked, and started plotting and scheming. In the end, seeing the party apparatus and Hung taking shots at each other, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) had no choice but to issue a call for unity.
Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), who had said that he would “not shrink back, but bravely move forward” if he was drafted by the party, was forced to start working behind the scenes to encourage local leaders to tell voters to split their votes for presidential candidates and legislators, while Vice President Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), who once said that he had “long been campaigning for Hung,” decided to follow his own agenda.
KMT politicians still do not seem to understand that the reason Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) managed to beat his KMT rival in last year’s nine-in-one elections was that he relied on “truth” and “sincerity,” rather than hypocrisy and scheming.
The second deadly threat to the KMT is self-aggrandizement.
Hung’s academic background leaves much to be desired and her social insights are narrow and biased. In the legislature, she has developed an image of being aggressive, and she repeatedly makes acerbic and sarcastic comments.
When American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Kin Moy invited Hung to the US to explain her policies, giving her the same treatment as Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), Hung flippantly asked why she would go if she was not given better treatment than Tsai, and said that “if the Americans want to understand my policies, just tell them to come over here.”
Would such arrogance, rudeness and lack of good manners add to or detract from Taiwan’s diplomatic efforts?
Moreover, Chu’s approval rating has plummeted to its lowest level after his aides and confidantes have become entangled in corruption allegations. He is a local-level copy of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九); it is difficult to understand how he could ever be seen as the KMT’s savior.
The third deadly threat is the party turning its back on public opinion.
Ma and his pro-China administration have already brought enough hardship to the economy, which has contracted for eight consecutive months, while Hung continues to cling to a dream that China is Taiwan’s future.
While Chu says that Hung’s views — such as “one China, same interpretation” and the view that the Constitution stipulates eventual unification — run counter to mainstream public opinion, he nurtures the view that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to “one China.” Is that in line with mainstream public opinion? Of the US, Japan and China, which country would offer Taiwan a way out and which would lead Taiwan down a dead-end street?
There are also views that many policy decisions — such as the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, the service trade agreement and the high-school curriculum guideline changes — were made in a non-transparent manner, that conglomerates are reaping the fruits of GDP growth and that wealth distribution is unfair. Are these views part of mainstream public opinion or do they run counter to it?
The final deadly threat is indecisiveness.
The world is in an era when timing is crucial to success. Hung’s low approval rating is not something that has developed overnight or within a couple of weeks, and the fact that the KMT has been unable to deal with this issue due to its indecisiveness is an issue for the party to address.
If Taiwanese were to hand the reins of the nation to such a party, the nation’s future and the welfare of its people would all go to waste.
For the sake of the nation and Taiwanese, everybody must say a resounding “No!” to the KMT on Jan. 16.
Chang Kuo-tsai retired as a professor at National Hsinchu University of Education.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with