The presidential and legislative elections are at hand and the majority of pre-election polls have indicated losses for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
Anticipating that result, three crucial questions are predicted for discussion in the aftermath. The first and obvious question will be why the KMT lost, especially after having controlled the presidency for eight years and having always held a legislative majority? Second and more importantly will be the discussion over why the KMT lost by so much? The third question is the most vital: Can the KMT regroup?
In answering these questions, five interlinked factors must be considered.
The first factor to examine is candidate choice. In looking at the three presidential candidates, the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) stands out as the best choice. Tsai has abundant governmental experience and has been battle tested in campaigns which have made her a seasoned veteran. Despite losses in 2010 against Eric Chu (朱立倫) in the New Taipei City mayoral race and in the 2012 presidential race, she has regrouped and reorganized the DPP. From all this, she has also learned the art of politics — which minefields to avoid and how to meet the needs of the broader spectrum. Now her only challenge is to deliver. Hopefully she will have a legislature that will help her.
People First Party PFP presidential candidate James Soong (宋楚瑜) is a man whose day has passed. He only hopes to ensure that his party will win some legislator-at-large seats. His best opportunity was in the 2000 presidential elections when he was at his peak. His failure to get even 5 percent of the vote in the 2008 Taipei mayoral election was a sign of his marginalization. Since then he has been a dead man walking in political cirlces. When he leaves, his party will crumble; strike the shepherd and the flock will scatter.
Chu has been thrust in the role of a “Johnny-come-lately” candidate. He had shown early promise for the KMT, but recent events have diluted that hope. His narrow re-election as New Taipei City mayor in 2014 was a sign of a faltering support base. At a time when he should have been examining the reasons behind his narrow margin of victory, he was forced into becoming the KMT hopeful. A loss now would give him time to reflect on KMT issues. Will he take the opportunity?
The KMT’s future brings up the second question of why the party has been losing by so much since the November nine-in-one elections in 2014. Part of the answer is the unfortunate factor of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九). Like it or not, Ma’s presidency has successfully and forever destroyed the KMT myth of “wise government” that had lingered from certain accomplishments in its one-party state days.
Examining the role of Ma is the key to understanding why the KMT fell. It is not just Ma who has been incompetent; governments have survived incompetent leaders before. The problem has been that Ma tied the credibility of the KMT to his image and his promise that he could bring back the glory days created by a one-party state. His promises proved to be misplaced. One of them was Ma’s ill-conceived vow to raise the individual income level to NT$30,000 per month. He never came close to achieving that in eight years. Unfortunately, not learning from this error, Chu has promised to achieve that level in one year if he is elected.
Finding a capable and credible chairperson will be a separate issue for the KMT if it hopes to regroup. Some in the Ma camp are floating the idea of bringing him back as chairperson, but that would be similar to the situation involving Soong Mayling (宋美齡) after former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Some loyalists would support Ma, but not enough to turn the tide. Ma might prove to be running for his life after he leaves office. The KMT chairperson issue will not be easy, especially since Deputy Legislative Speaker Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), whom Chu replaced as presidential candidate, is considering running for that position.
There is more trouble in store for the KMT. An ironic third hidden role to be sorted out is that of Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平). Wang is a wheeler-dealer who is liked by many, but favored by few. Despite his speakership, he has never been KMT party chairman or a presidential candidate.
In the strife of September last year, Ma tried to get rid of Wang because Wang did not move the cross-strait service trade agreement with China through the legislature quickly enough. This backfired on Ma because Wang saved the Sunflower movement by allowing the student-led group to remain in the main legislative chamber and not ordering them to be cleared out like they were from the Executive Yuan.
As No. 1 on the KMT at-large list, Wang is guaranteed to be in the legislature for the next four years whatever happens on Saturday.
The fourth factor for the KMT is coming to terms with its past identity. Certainly one contributing reason for the KMT’s failure is that the party does not have a sense of shared history with Taiwan. In its role as settler colonialists, the KMT never outnumbered Taiwanese. Instead, it has proven to be only a diaspora, although it does not know how to accept that role. Some party members long to go back to China; others have adapted and become Taiwanese, while others are content to try and become a lesser enclave in Taiwanese politics and culture. This factor will be key in the struggle for the party’s identity.
The fifth complication that portends problems for the KMT is the use of media on a huge scale alongside the role of a free press, something that did not exist in the KMT’s one-party state days. This is seen when KMT commercials and “propaganda” are quickly parodied, with the party’s leaders mocked. The Sunflower movement used this to its advantage. News can be transmitted nationwide in seconds and YouTube videos can go viral in minutes; people do not need to rely on television, newspapers and radio.
Because of the change in how news travels, the public can see that their leaders have flaws and need not be glorified as in the days of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石). Political image is a crucial factor and a two-edged sword, but the government is not the only entity that can wield it.
These are things that the KMT must face if it is to regroup in the aftermath of the elections.
Jerome Keating is a commentator in Taipei.
With its passing of Hong Kong’s new National Security Law, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) continues to tighten its noose on Hong Kong. Gone is the broken 1997 promise that Hong Kong would have free, democratic elections by 2017. Gone also is any semblance that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) plays the long game. All the CCP had to do was hold the fort until 2047, when the “one country, two systems” framework would end and Hong Kong would rejoin the “motherland.” It would be a “demonstration-free” event. Instead, with the seemingly benevolent velvet glove off, the CCP has revealed its true iron
At the end of last month, Paraguayan Ambassador to Taiwan Marcial Bobadilla Guillen told a group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators that his president had decided to maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan, despite pressure from the Chinese government and local businesses who would like to see a switch to Beijing. This followed the Paraguayan Senate earlier this year voting against a proposal to establish ties with China in exchange for medical supplies. This constituted a double rebuke of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) diplomatic agenda in a six-month span from Taiwan’s only diplomatic ally in South America. Last year, Tuvalu rejected an
US President Donald Trump’s administration on Friday last week announced it would impose sanctions on the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a vast paramilitary organization that is directly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and has been linked to human rights violations against Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang. The sanctions follow US travel bans against other Xinjiang officials and the passage of the US Hong Kong Autonomy Act, which authorizes targeted sanctions against mainland Chinese and Hong Kong officials, in response to Beijing’s imposition of national security legislation on the territory. The sanctions against the corps would be implemented
US President Donald Trump on Thursday issued executive orders barring Americans from conducting business with WeChat owner Tencent Holdings and ByteDance, the Beijing-based owner of popular video-sharing app TikTok. The orders are to take effect 45 days after they were signed, which is Sept. 20. The orders accuse WeChat of helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) review and remove content that it considers to be politically sensitive, and of using fabricated news to benefit itself. The White House has accused TikTok of collecting users’ information, location data and browsing histories, which could be used by the Chinese government, and pose