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.
President William Lai (賴清德) attended a dinner held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) when representatives from the group visited Taiwan in October. In a speech at the event, Lai highlighted similarities in the geopolitical challenges faced by Israel and Taiwan, saying that the two countries “stand on the front line against authoritarianism.” Lai noted how Taiwan had “immediately condemned” the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas and had provided humanitarian aid. Lai was heavily criticized from some quarters for standing with AIPAC and Israel. On Nov. 4, the Taipei Times published an opinion article (“Speak out on the
More than a week after Hondurans voted, the country still does not know who will be its next president. The Honduran National Electoral Council has not declared a winner, and the transmission of results has experienced repeated malfunctions that interrupted updates for almost 24 hours at times. The delay has become the second-longest post-electoral silence since the election of former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez of the National Party in 2017, which was tainted by accusations of fraud. Once again, this has raised concerns among observers, civil society groups and the international community. The preliminary results remain close, but both
News about expanding security cooperation between Israel and Taiwan, including the visits of Deputy Minister of National Defense Po Horng-huei (柏鴻輝) in September and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Francois Wu (吳志中) this month, as well as growing ties in areas such as missile defense and cybersecurity, should not be viewed as isolated events. The emphasis on missile defense, including Taiwan’s newly introduced T-Dome project, is simply the most visible sign of a deeper trend that has been taking shape quietly over the past two to three years. Taipei is seeking to expand security and defense cooperation with Israel, something officials
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
RSS