Last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Central Policy Committee director Alex Tsai (蔡正元) stirred up a storm with his unexpected announcement that the party’s next chairperson election would be moved forward to May 20, from the widely expected date of July 20.
The rationale for the move sounds reasonable: Because the KMT party charter dictates it must be so. According to Article 17 of the charter, a chairperson election should be held three months before a national congress in the year the incumbent’s term expires.
The KMT chairperson-elect is required to be inaugurated at the national congress, the charter stipulates.
Tsai also argued that since the party charter stipulates that a chairperson’s term is four years, the term expiration dates of successors of the KMT’s first directly elected chairman, Lien Chan (連戰), should be in line with the expiry date of Lien’s term, which was Aug. 19, 2005. That means the party should inaugurate a chairperson once every four years on Aug. 20.
However, a look at the dates when previous KMT chairperson elections took place raises the question: Why address the issue now?
As Tsai pointed out, KMT chairmen elected during the 2005 and 2009 races all failed to abide by the party charter as they were sworn in at a national congresses held less than three months after their victories.
Another example Tsai cited to justify the changes was that the party’s fifth chairman, due to a failure to adhere to the party charter, was allowed to occupy the post for longer than the statutory four years, as evidenced by his and his successor’s inauguration dates on Oct. 17, 2009, and Nov. 10, 2013, respectively.
Tsai’s arguments seem logical at first glance, but what he failed to mention, perhaps purposefully, was that the KMT’s fifth chairman was former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who was re-elected as the sixth KMT leader on July 20, 2013.
It means that the exact date when Ma was reinstated is of little consequence, as he was already set to serve as KMT chairman for longer than four years. So again, why the sudden commitment to transforming the KMT into a rule-abiding party?
Besides, the KMT is notorious for bending the rules when it sees fit. Just look at how New Taipei City mayor Eric Chu (朱立倫) stripped KMT chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) of her democratically earned candidacy in the Jan. 16 presidential election.
There have been many conspiracy theories behind the changed date of the party’s chairperson election, a motion that was railroaded by the KMT headquarters through a Central Standing Committee meeting on Wednesday last week despite the lack of a quorum.
Some believe it is an attempt by Hung to increase her chance of re-election, which has been her top priority given that she was elected to chairperson in March in a by-election that mandated a term of less than one-and-a-half years. If Hung wants to control the direction of the KMT, she would definitely need a full four-year term.
By moving the election forward Hung would also be able to throw other potential competitors off guard and disrupt their strategies. That is probably why KMT Vice Chairman Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌), who is reported to be interested in running against Hung, was so quick to criticize the changes as undemocratic.
However, Hung might need to employ more skillful maneuvers to secure her leadership of the KMT, particularly at a time when the party is desperate to overhaul itself and get back on its feet.
Until Hung and other KMT heavyweights come to the painful realization that there would not be a party left for them to lead unless they place the task of rebuilding the KMT above their personal agendas, any talk of the KMT returning to power in 2020 is simply wishful thinking.
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
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
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with