On Wednesday, six aspirants for the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) picked up registration forms for the chairperson March 26 by-election, despite the disappointment of some pro-reform KMT members who had urged the party leadership to lower the threshold for candidacy.
Under the KMT’s regulations, only party members who have served on the KMT Central Committee or Central Advisory Committee are eligible to seek election.
The Central Committee has 210 members, who are elected at the party’s national congress from a pool of no more than 420 candidates, half of whom must be nominated by the KMT chairperson and the other half by about 1,600 party delegates.
As for the Central Advisory Committee, its members are appointed by the KMT chairperson, but must be approved by the congress delegates.
Candidates are required to pay a hefty, nonrefundable “handling fee” of NT$1.6 million (US$47,417) and collect the signatures of at least 3 percent of total KMT members, of which there are about 320,000.
The handling fee seems to be another deliberate attempt by the party’s leadership to prevent younger or less well-off members from contending for the post.
The party’s 3 percent endorsement threshold also poses a challenge to aspirants who are not among the top echelon or who are not a member of any of the longstanding factions.
These limitations are why in the past decade the KMT chairperson elections or by-elections have started to look like a game of “musical chairs,” with the post being occupied mainly by the party’s old guard or its devotees.
The requirements are apparently a strategy put into place to rig the elections, to ensure that the party’s top position, the holder of which is almost guaranteed a presidential nomination, remains exclusive to the party’s chosen few.
The KMT’s humiliating defeat in the Jan. 16 presidential and legislative elections has given rise to some unusual, but constructive reform proposals, particularly from younger members who have repeatedly called for the abolition of the chairperson electoral requirements and the realignment of the party’s “spirt” to become more Taiwan-centric.
Sadly, the responses of the KMT leadership and the New Party, whose founding members quit the KMT more than two decades ago, suggest that the pleas for reform are falling on deaf ears.
Instead, KMT headquarters said that it plans to leave the matter to the discretion of the new chairperson, as a revision of the rules would have to be approved at a national congress, which is unlikely to be held before the by-election due to time constraints.
Such an excuse is preposterous in light of the fact that — after receiving the green light from the KMT Central Standing Committee — it took the party’s leadership just 10 days to hold an extempore national congress and nullify the presidential candidacy of Deputy Legislative Speaker Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) in October last year.
New Party Chairman Yok Mu-ming’s (郁慕明) remarks that the KMT’s priority is to rid itself of members who disagree with its “spirit” and core values provides further evidence that the KMT is a bigoted party that only pays lip service to reforms.
In the same way that people always say they are going on a diet “tomorrow,” the KMT’s oft-stated goal of reform looks set to be postponed if it happens at all.
Before then, the party’s chairperson by-election will be just another one of its games — with the result already rigged.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
RSS