Aside from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), is there any other political party in the democratic world that intentionally erects an elaborate series of barriers to prevent participation by its members?
In 2015, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) — then an opposition leader — and the wider pan-green camp had momentum on their side. The KMT was still in government, although many of its legislators were keeping a low profile, afraid that if they stuck their heads above the parapet they would be shot down like cannon fodder.
Last year, the electorate, quite justifiably, chose to transfer power to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). However, if the KMT is weakened to the point that it cannot fulfill its constitutional role as an effective opposition party, this will be detrimental not just to the growth of Taiwan’s democracy, but also to the Tsai administration.
Having stumbled into becoming a member of the KMT about 50 years ago and given my concerns as outlined above, after much deliberation in 2015 I put myself forward to be nominated as a candidate for the party’s presidential primary.
Having decided to throw my hat into the ring, I quickly realized that the application requirements were extremely demanding and the barrier to entry was set ridiculously high.
For instance, candidates must have been a party representative — fortunately, since I had previously held the position of government minister and, according to party rules, I automatically became a party representative.
In addition, the registration deposit was set at NT$2 million (US$63,775), while an additional NT$7 million must be shelled out to cover an administrative fee for the collection of party members’ signatures. The majority of party members either have not held the position of party representative or do not have pockets deep enough to pay for an application. This means that party members who might well have valuable ideas to contribute were excluded from putting their names forward.
Furthermore, the KMT membership roll is a complete mess. There are names registered at empty or unknown addresses, as well as individuals who have long since passed away.
There is also a rule that says only party members who have been paying membership fees for at least three months are qualified to execute their membership rights and cast a vote. Since payment of the membership fee requires a trip to a Chunghwa Post office — it should have been made possible a long time ago to pay the fee at a convenience store — most of my friends within the party were unable to vote.
In addition, the vast majority of the party’s Huang Fu-hsing (黃復興) military veterans’ branch enjoy membership rights without having to pay a fee. This means that a candidate who controls the Huang Fu Hsing controls the KMT. However, the composition, ideals and life experience of the branch differ substantially from the vast majority of the party’s members — let alone wider society.
A party that rejects the participation of its membership in such a way is destined to inexorable decline and a hemorrhaging of its membership.
For this reason, when I was collecting signatures, I declared that the overriding motivation for my decision to contest the primary was to bring the party to its knees, so that it could be rebuilt to live another day. Although I was unsuccessful in my efforts to destroy the KMT from within, the electorate gave the party a sound thrashing at last year’s presidential and legislative elections.
Since the Tsai administration has made a complete hash of things since taking office — and its approval ratings are continually falling in opinion polls — there is reason to think that there might be another change of political power come 2020. For this reason, a new battle for control of the chairmanship is under way within the KMT.
Since power is centralized around the chairman, I suggested to former KMT vice chairman Steve Chan (詹啟賢) and vice chair Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) that at the very least removing the barriers to entry for party leadership candidates should be removed so that any member is qualified to run.
To allow wider participation in the voting process, members should only need to have paid one month’s membership fee prior to the election to be qualified to vote. Both Chan and Hau approved of my suggestion.
Unfortunately, people can see today that the party stubbornly refuses to change. Since taking on the role, KMT Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) has met with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and loudly advocated a new “one China” formula — “one China, common interpretation” — against the wishes of many in the party. Not only this, but Hung has yet to initiate any meaningful reform to the party and as a result is allowing the party to fall into decline.
The members of the Huang Fu-hsing branch have been loyal members for many decades, but a vast majority of them do not have the right to run in the chairmanship election, as they have not been members of the party’s Central Standing Committee. Why would they continue to stay loyal to Hung?
Yaung Chih-liang is a former health and welfare minister.
Translated by Edward Jones
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath