Three months before the presidential election, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) decided to replace its presidential candidate, Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱). Whether or not this is a matter of any great import, it had been a subject of speculation for months and now that the deed is done, it is time to reflect on what has transpired and improve Taiwan’s political environment based on the lessons learned.
If it is the public consensus that the KMT’s eight years in control of both the presidency and the legislature has been a disaster, how can it ensure that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which will very likely win control over both branches of government, does not continue on the same disastrous path?
While many people have been puzzled as to why Hung’s ouster caused such a tempest in a teapot, a deeper look into the deep-blue faction’s mindset reveals her “mass appeal.” The real reason for Hung’s appeal was her unequivocal statement that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to “one China” and her advocacy of eventual unification. To borrow the words of former National Development Council minister Kuan Chung-ming (管中閔), Hung has “the spirit of a real man.”
Hung’s advocacy of hasty unification pleased deep-blue voters. Even the Beijing government’s mouthpieces were getting nervous, writing editorials saying that if the crisis represented by Hung’s replacement leads to further fragmentation of the blue camp, it would have grave difficulty in picking up the pieces and putting itself back together. By suddenly rescinding Hung’s presidential candidacy, the KMT proved that the so-called “1992 consensus” and “one China, same interpretations” are merely sugar-coated lies to the Chinese. China’s state-owned media used to describe President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) as a “political hypocrite” and called his governing skills “dreadful.”
Perhaps they had discovered something about Ma to prompt those rants. Since even the Chinese could see through Ma’s hypocritical “1992 consensus,” who did he fool with his National Day address? He criticized DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), saying: “Without the ‘1992 consensus,’ maintaining the ‘status quo’ will be just an empty slogan.” Surely these remarks themselves are a collection of empty slogans. Who does he think he is fooling?
The KMT fools no one. That is why Tsai said it was irrelevant if Hung remained the candidate since the public is expecting a change of government next year. Tsai was right, and that is probably the mainstream opinion. However, these high hopes for a change of government have also drawn public scrutiny to the would-be ruling party: the DPP and its members.
In contrast to Tsai’s stance, some DPP legislators, councilors and officials seem to be extremely concerned with Hung’s replacement, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). They have either been talking about it fervently on TV or commented on Facebook, not wanting to be left out in the frenzy. Their enthusiasm has made people wonder whether the DPP really thinks Hung’s replacement was irrelevant.
Former Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) recently quoted Davidson College East Asian politics professor Shelley Rigger as saying that Taiwan seems reluctant to ponder inconvenient realities while indulging in a “soporific Hello Kitty culture.”
We cannot disagree more. Rather than saying that Rigger took aim at the DPP, it would be more fitting to say she described Ma’s liking for creating fanfare. As to whether Tsai’s campaign is forging a “soporific Hello Kitty culture,” perhaps stronger actions are needed to dispel that impression.
The DPP is likely to win the presidential election as well as gain control of the legislature for the first time. The public must be keen to find out if this will mark the beginning of something new or if it will perpetuate the ongoing disaster. At this stage, people are looking at some of the following critical points: How much time does the DPP spend on the election campaign relative to how much time it spends on formulating policies; as the DPP builds its campaign momentum, how can it convince more voters that it is ready to govern the nation; when the DPP introduces policies, how can it convince the public of the quality of its governance and that they will be both pragmatic and forward-looking without painting pie in the sky for certain groups.
These are all lessons learned from the second power transition in 2008, when Ma took advantage of former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) unpopularity to garner a landslide win. However, when Ma’s rule failed and the public finally discovered his ineptness, it was too late. Taiwan must not repeat the same mistake.
Hence, here is some sincere advice to the DPP’s political elites: Do not revel in Ma’s failure and assume that the upcoming elections are yours to lose; do not become arrogant and full of yourselves because you are likely to assume power; do not forget the enormous responsibility and remember to perform your duties with humility.
All of this can be done by candidly telling voters what you are going to do, beginning today.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
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