Time and tide wait for no man; and so in Taiwan, though time has moved on, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) once again seems caught in a time warp. Once more it finds itself at yet another crossroads and another crisis of leadership. On Saturday, the party members must once more choose a new chairperson.
For the KMT, such dilemmas of choice unfortunately seem to have become a recurring annual nightmare. This occurred first after the disastrous nine-in-one elections of November 2014. At that time President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) stepped down from the chairman’s position to take responsibility for the party’s poor showing. New Taipei City Mayor Eric Chu (朱立倫) took his place.
Chu did not last long. Last year, when it came time for the party to choose a presidential candidate for the Jan. 16 elections, traditional party leaders once more held back. As a result of their reluctance, then-deputy legislative speaker Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) stepped into the breach, proposing to be a brick that would attract jade. No jade came forth and she became the KMT presidential candidate.
However, party powers were not satisfied with her election chances and so months into the campaign, they drafted Chu to replace her in the lead role.
Barely a year into his leadership position, Chu not only lost the presidential race, but since the party took a real drubbing in the race for the legislature, he was also forced to relinquish his role as party chairman, thus leaving a vacancy once more to be filled in the by-election.
The coming by-election portends to be yet another challenging and defining moment. For some, the flip-flop of choices over the past two years has been like watching slow motion replays of a party train wreck. The continuation of this is something party members wish to avoid. But how? What challenges must the new leader overcome? What skills will be needed for the task? And who is up to doing the job?
The first major challenge is developing a new and clear strategy of “localization” and how to encompass the nation’s growing sense of “being Taiwanese.” Inherent in the party’s defeats has been that more and more people identify as Taiwanese and not Chinese. The KMT has yet to adapt to this growing “new-found” sense of national identity.
Then, of course, there is the issue of the party’s ill-gotten assets. Ma promised to resolve this, but in eight years, he did relatively nothing. Further, with its past majority in the Legislative Yuan, the KMT had been able to consistently block bills attempting to rectify the situation. That no longer holds. A new and hungry legislature, with a different majority, is pushing for resolution of these matters. What skills will the new KMT leader need to handle such situations?
Not to be ignored is the ongoing matter of corruption. This is not endemic to the KMT alone; it pervades all parties, but the KMT remains used to a sense of “privilege” from its one-party state days. The temptations and opportunities remain. The Ma years only maintained a temporary gloss and facade of anti-corruption. However, several of Ma’s appointees have been found guilty of corruption; further, Ma could easily be indicted when he leaves office. Any new chairperson would have to address all this as well.
Finally, and what might be the prime concern, the party must determine its core values and if they match a changing Taiwan. Much water has gone under the bridge from when the KMT first fled to Taiwan in 1949. The core values of a party that not only lost the Chinese Civil War, but also China and now lives in diaspora must be re-examined to see if they fit in a new democracy and new land.
Included in this is an examination of the past and outdated 1947 Republic of China (ROC) Constitution. That constitution was formulated when the KMT had a semblance of power in China and has since been regularly amended to adapt to the reality of being in Taiwan. In this regard, even the hanging of images of Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙) as the nation’s “founding father” is now being questioned, as are the ROC’s claims to being the legitimate ruler of China.
The KMT has been a top-down party that prospered in a one-party state. Leadership roles traditionally followed a standard pattern of waiting in line for opportunities to progress.
In this milieu, thus far, none of the traditional party leaders have ventured forward to run for the chairperson’s role. Perhaps they either feared rejection or knew too well that they were not up to the task. The current applicants are relative newcomers to this level of power. This can be good, but also can be bad. Whoever is chosen, they are set to face many continuing challenges.
So who are the KMT candidates? First there is Hung. She is the one that the party replaced as its presidential candidate last year. However, she gained the highest number of signatures for the position and she is supported by the old guard Huang Fu-hsing (黃復興) chapter. Hung downplays localization factors and ultimately believes in reunification. Her ideas of what the party is all about suggest that she is out of touch.
In contrast is the acting chairperson Huang Ming-hui (黃敏惠). She represents the pro-localization factions. That is a plus on her side, but the question is if she is up to all the other tasks.
Then there is KMT Legislator Apollo Chen (陳學聖), a more “middle way” person, but it is unclear how much leadership he could command in this situation.
And finally there is Lee Hsin (李新), who seems the most reform-minded. Lee has said that he would buckle down and work with the public. He would also take the controversial assets and distribute them to party members. He has been the most vociferous, but how much of a following does he have?
The old guard is represented by people such as former premier Hau Pei-tsun (郝柏村), who declared that the New Party is the true KMT. They have influence, but following such could be suicide. They favor the position of the almost defunct New Party.
As the continuing drama plays out in Taiwan, it is decision time once again for the KMT. Will the party and its new leader be up to the task? Or will it be in the memorable words of Yogi Berra, “It’s like deja vu all over again.”
Jerome Keating is a writer based in Taipei.
A 50-year-old on Wednesday last week died while under anesthesia at a Taipei cosmetic clinic shortly after undergoing a penis enlargement procedure. The surgeon was arrested for suspected medical malpractice, again bringing to the surface shortcomings in the regulation of cosmetic medicine. Media reports said the clinic owner and surgeon, surnamed Ting (丁), was previously convicted of negligent homicide for a postsurgical death and had been charged with coercion and aggravated assault after allegedly stopping a patient from calling for an ambulance. He had also been fined for failing inspections and had allegedly permitted people without medical licenses to assist
It was most annoying last week to read Chairman Xi Jinping’s (習近平) fulsome encomium to the People’s Liberation Army during the Eightieth Anniversary celebrations of victory over Japan in World War II. Comrade Xi’s soaring rhetoric was stuffed with “martyrs, sacrifice, solemnity and unwavering resolve” in praise of the “Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War.” His aspirations overflowed with “world peace” and love of the United Nations, of which China is a founding member. The Liberation Army Daily said that every word from General Secretary Xi Jinping “resounded in his powerful voice, illuminating the
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
An American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) spokesperson on Saturday rebuked a Chinese official for mischaracterizing World War II-era agreements as proving that Taiwan was ceded to China. The US Department of State later affirmed that the AIT remarks reflect Washington’s long-standing position: Taiwan’s political status remains undetermined and should only be resolved peacefully. The US would continue supporting Taiwan against military, economic, legal and diplomatic pressure from China, and opposes any unilateral attempt to alter the “status quo,” particularly through coercion or force, the United Daily News cited the department as saying. The remarks followed Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs
RSS