Former deputy legislative speaker Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) has been elected the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) chairperson, making her the first female chairperson in the party’s more than 100-year history.
Hung takes the party’s reins at a particularly troubled time, in the wake of an electoral rout, and if she is to steer the party back to health, she will have her work cut out for her. The situation she inherits is even more dire than the one president-elect Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) had to deal with when she became Democratic Progressive Party chairperson eight years ago.
Hung faces three major tasks: resolving internal party divisions, dealing with party assets and setting a direction for the party. If she takes even a single misstep, she could be consigning the party to years of obscurity.
The KMT is a foreign political party. At first, it was composed — members and leadership alike — entirely of non-Taiwanese. It was a case of “us versus them,” with the two sides never coming together. The KMT was like a square peg facing a round hole.
Late president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) initiated a move toward “localizing” the party, an initiative continued by his successor, former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝).
However, after Lee left office, the party reverted to its old ways. The makeup of the party meant that Hung, originally from China, was a shoo-in for the job. It is noteworthy that even after the three government transitions over the past 16 years, the party has completely failed to keep up with the times and has become increasingly out of touch with the public.
Now that Hung holds the reins, it is expected that the pro-localization faction will either leave the party or become alienated within it. If Hung does not address the problem and try to steer the party toward a more stable, moderate direction, the KMT will find itself on a narrow path, with increasingly curtailed options.
In her cross-strait policy, Hung goes even further than the principle of “one China, different interpretations,” favoring instead “one China, same interpretation.” This is even more at odds with mainstream public opinion than President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) preoccupation with the so-called “1992 consensus.”
Hung is always at liberty to stick to her guns and maintain the party’s pro-unification stance, but she might well find that would be unacceptable for most Taiwanese, and neither would it find as much favor with Beijing as the more avidly pro-unification New Party.
Of course, the KMT could get into bed with the New Party, but that would further erode its standing and it would no longer be able to lay claim to being a major political force in Taiwan.
The KMT’s assets have also come under much scrutiny and criticism. In the past, the party could obfuscate the issue, as it had control over both the executive and legislative branches of government. It did not need to overly concern itself with what the opposition or the public thought of the issue.
That is no longer true. Both branches have changed hands. The Legislative Yuan is already at the review stage of legislative proposals aimed at dealing with the KMT’s assets.
At this point, if the KMT does not do something about its assets of its own volition, it will be forced to do something. If it opts to be more active, it would at least be able to control the situation to a certain degree and would be able to retain its dignity. If it is forced to hand over its assets, it would be left with nothing. These are all problems that Hung will have to tackle, if not sooner, then later.
Burger King Taiwan on Wednesday last week posted an update on Facebook advertising a new “Wuhan pneumonia” (武漢肺炎) home delivery meal, catering to customers hankering for a Whopper, but who wished to avoid visiting one of its outlets. “Wuhan pneumonia” is the term commonly used in Taiwan to describe COVID-19. Beijing has been waging an extensive propaganda campaign against the use of the words “Wuhan” or “China” in reference to the novel coronavirus, calling it racist and discriminatory. Meanwhile, Chinese officials have claimed that the coronavirus might have originated in the US. The intention is obvious: to distract attention from the Chinese Communist
Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force Shaanxi KJ-500 airborne early-warning aircraft and Shenyang J-11 fighters on March 16 conducted a nighttime exercise in the waters southwest of Taiwan and, in doing so, came close to the nation’s air defense identification zone. Three days later, the PLA Navy’s fleet for Gulf of Aden escort mission sailed north in the Pacific off Taiwan’s east coast via the Miyako Strait on its way home. Meanwhile, the US carried out freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea and assembled the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group with the Expeditionary Strike Group to conduct
Having returned to the UK late last year and with a Taiwanese spouse remaining in Taiwan, I have been afforded the chance to compare and contrast the UK and Taiwanese governments’ responses to the COVID-19 crisis. My early conclusions are that Taiwan benefits from a rational, competent government, which quickly recognizes, adapts to and confronts large-scale disasters. It is led by a government that does more than just talk of respecting democracy and human rights, one that is scrutinized and responds to criticism, one that is concerned about public opinion, and one that is used to dealing with emergencies on
Italy, Spain, France, the UK and the US are all depending on social distancing to fight COVID-19 and have fallen into terrible situations, with mounting positive cases and many deaths. Social distancing might flatten the curve, so that the peak is not so high that hospitals are overwhelmed with patients, the problem is that the pandemic could extend further into the future, hurt the economy more and become unbearable for society. Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and Singapore have controlled the spread of COVID-19, and the main reason is that most Asians wear masks. It can be illustrated as follows: If someone contracts the