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.
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