The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) held an extraordinary party conference on Oct. 17 to nominate KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) as its presidential candidate. The KMT’s removal of its original candidate — Deputy Legislative Speaker Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), who espoused eventual unification — implies that the party elite acknowledges that to survive, it must not be out of touch with public opinion. This is a positive development for both the KMT and the nation.
Since Chu is willing to take responsibility and face the electorate, the KMT must be reminded of a few things, as Chu is still clearing the battlefield and is about to make a fresh start.
If the KMT is merely replacing the “one China, same interpretation” ideology with the so-called “1992 consensus” to use that as the main theme to conduct its election campaign for the next three months, then it is just replacing one mistake with another.
The principal rationale behind Hung’s policy was that the “1992 consensus” had fulfilled its purpose and therefore the next step was to move from “one China, different interpretations” and “one China, no interpretation” frameworks to the concept of “one China, same interpretation.” She attempted to use the idea of a “whole China” to supplement the “one China” concept.
She thought President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) policy based on the “1992 consensus” only partially revealed his true intentions, whereas “one China, same interpretation” completely unveiled the KMT’s true purpose — eventual unification — and it is on this premise that the KMT would enter into a peace agreement with China.
Chu wants to keep the ambiguity, allowing each side to interpret what “one China” means on its terms. This is the path that the KMT has trodden since 2005, when the first meeting between former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) and then-Chinese president Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) was held. The KMT’s political line can be put to the test by adopting the “one China, different interpretations” framework.
The presidential election on Jan. 16 can be seen as a referendum — if the public supports the KMT’s political line, it would win the election; if the public opposes the political line, it would lose. The public should respect the KMT’s right to decide how it wants to forge its policy.
However, immediately after Chu was named as the party’s presidential candidate, the first gauntlet he threw down to Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) was to ask for a debate on cross-strait relations and the maintenance of the “status quo.”
The public cannot help but look at the confrontation with doubt and worry. Does Chu want to use cross-strait relations to divide the public and paint a beautiful picture of the KMT’s alliance with the Chinese Communist Party? That way, the KMT could divert public attention from its incompetence, while emulating Ma’s trick of controlling Taiwan by teaming up with China.
The cross-strait relationship is an external challenge that the nation has to face. That Chu would use it as the main theme for his campaign connotes his malice toward the public.
First, Chu decided to follow a vague party line within the KMT. On the one hand he rejected Hung’s straightforwardness, while on the other he is pushing Tsai to clarify her stance. Is there any justification to this?
Second, although Taiwan has diverse opinions, after the lessons learned from previous governments, the consensus has been to maintain stability across the Taiwan Strait: to refrain from capitalizing on cross-strait relations for political gains and abstain from both provoking and pandering to Beijing.
Why does Chu ignore the problems that the public faces, choosing to focus on matters that could lead to division among Taiwanese? Is this not sheer malice?
The results of last year’s nine-in-one elections and recent polls both spell out that the last thing the nation needs is politicians who waste everyone’s time and energy by causing internal friction; what it needs is politicians who demonstrate true leadership and have the ability to solve problems. This is the yardstick for January’s presidential and legislative elections.
The most important issues to consider and address before voters go to the polls are: how to reverse the economic downturn; how to close the widening gap between rich and poor people; how to deal with the issue of generational justice; and how to create a government system in which power corresponds to responsibility.
Creating policies to address the issues depends on a leader’s judgement, the quality of their staff and whether they can get a grip on the nation’s problems. These are the issues that presidential candidates should consider first.
Over the past eight years, Ma’s government has either offered no solutions to such fundamental issues or allowed them to worsen. He also imposed his personal ideology on everything. Many matters could have been addressed objectively with policies formulated through rational discussions. Instead, Ma associated issues with party lines, causing confusion in the workings of the Constitution. As a result, numerous protests have taken place during his presidency and every last bit of trust in his administration has disappeared.
If Chu wants to save the KMT from collapse, he should propose a new political line to respond to the demands of the public, instead of continuing to follow the old doctrines while turning his back on voters, for that would only crush the KMT.
These are the matters that politicians should seriously think about, especially Chu, who just launched his campaign and still has options ahead of him.
Translated by Clare Lear
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US