The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) suffered an unprecedented defeat in both the presidential and legislative elections. Not only did it lose power, it now has to live with a legislative minority, too. This defeat, close on the heels of its nine-in-one rout in late 2014, has many asking exactly where the century-old party is headed, both within and outside the KMT. While the party’s older generation is preoccupied with the election of the new chairman, its mid-generation is calling for the “alternation of generations” and its younger generation is pushing for concrete reform policies.
President-elect Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said: “No political party is irreplaceable in Taiwan.” Whether the KMT can rise again is its own business, but there is a certain agreement that there is little hope for Taiwan unless the KMT falls (國民黨不倒,台灣不會好). Nonetheless, the party that has dominated Taiwanese politics is still the second-largest party in the new legislature, with 35 legislative seats. Its future direction remains crucial to Taiwanese politics and national and social development.
In order to analyze the KMT’s direction, we should make a thorough inquiry into the cause of the party’s consecutive defeats resulting in today’s predicament. A number of diagnoses have been proffered.
Some blame it on President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) for his excessive reliance on China and his poor performance, while others blame it on internal disunity, as party heavyweights only seem to think of themselves. Some have suggested the forced apology by K-pop star Chou Tzu-yu (周子瑜) damaged the party. The party has lost touch with what Taiwanese want and has often done the opposite.
The KMT’s younger members want to change the party name. Having “Chinese” in its title has become rather sensitive, as it suggests the KMT is not a local party and does not belong in Taiwanese society after its democratization. The authoritarian party-state of the past ruled with its political, economic, military and intelligence powers as a foreign regime and it had rarely identified itself with Taiwanese, who were angry, but dared not speak out.
Things are different now. If parties and politicians do not identify with Taiwan, Taiwanese are unlikely to identify with them and would not vote for them. This is an inevitable consequence of distancing themselves from voters.
It has been suggested on many occasions that the KMT change its name to the “Taiwanese Nationalist Party” (台灣國民黨). Younger party members also suggest the name “Nationalist Party” (國民黨). The current title is no longer suitable. Perhaps a name change can serve as the first step to adjusting its attitude and behavior, while becoming more aware of what Taiwanese want.
The KMT’s illicitly gained assets is another issue that does not sit well. The party used to enjoy hundreds of billions of New Taiwan dollars through the public sector, the national treasury, generous public donations and party-run businesses with special government allowances.
However, the richest party in the world might have violated the democratic norm, because parties should be “non-profit organizations,” and this has created unfair competition between the parties. How it deals with its assets, then, is key to transitional justice.
Faced with calls in previous elections for it to dispose of its assets, the KMT merely attempted to distract voters, to draw the issue out, but its consecutive defeats highlight that such assets result in more failure than success. The illegitimate properties appear to be assets on the surface, but in reality are liabilities.
An opinion poll showed that more than two-thirds of Taiwanese agree that the government should take these assets back through legislation. The party should either dispose of such property or cooperate with the new government’s legislation to this end. If it continues to attempt to go against public opinion, it is likely to find itself isolated.
Most importantly, the KMT should redefine itself as a “loyal opposition party” in order to win back public support. It did not play the game following the first transition of power in 2000. It blocked the then-Democratic Progressive Party government’s US arms deal for a long time, and after then-KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) visited China in 2005, political and business leaders repeatedly traveled across the Taiwan Strait. In addition, since Ma took office in 2008, his administration has played the role of a “disloyal ruling party,” allying with Beijing and distorting the relationship between friend and foe. Just as the rich and powerful benefit from the relationship, the overall economy and general public suffer from it.
The KMT’s two consecutive landslide defeats clearly revealed the opinion of Taiwanese, who despise its political line of colluding with China, which is harmful to Taiwan. After the defeats, the party should reflect upon its transgressions and listen to what the public is trying to tell it. It should play the role of a “loyal opposition party” from the legislative operations to its China policy. The best way for it to rise again is to take public opinion seriously.
As the KMT’s older generation puts its focus on the chairmanship election, many inside and outside the party suggest it should push for systematic reform, internal democracy, alternation of generations and correction of its hypocritical culture.
All these systematic and personnel reforms seem to be necessary, but changing its name, disposing of illictly gained assets and playing the role of a “loyal opposition party” are the keys to the party’s fortunes.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s