In only nine months, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has completed its chairmanship, Central Committee and Central Standing Committee elections, and is about to elect directors of its local chapters.
Looking at this slew of elections, it seems like the KMT has been thoroughly democratized, when in fact these elections were purposeless. They did not make people think that the party was acting on behalf of the public and initiating reform. Instead, it is like a straw man with a body and no soul, unable to stabilize the turbulent political situation.
Opinion polls show that support for the KMT has not only failed to increase, but has fallen. No one views the party as a threat in the 2020 presidential election.
As for the local elections next year, it is difficult to imagine the party achieving any exceptional results except in New Taipei City, where it has a stable support base.
As the once-glorious party drifts aimlessly, disappointed supporters are becoming increasingly indifferent to its performance.
The root of the problem is the power struggle among KMT heavyweights over the past year. They are unable to propose any concrete views or new ideas to promote public welfare, and worse, the party is losing its core ideals and beliefs, but the heavyweights neither care nor try to protect them.
Take for example the election of Central Standing Committee members. It was hard to glean from media reports why the candidates wanted to run in the first place, or why it was significant. The only news that came through was about how candidates kept exchanging support for each other, buying each other big meals, or rumors about vote-buying practices. Many party members did not even know who was running in the election until they saw the results.
What is worse is that among the 32 seats up for grabs, 20 went to incumbents and 12 to new members. This means that new members account for less than 40 percent of the total, many of whom are the same old faces.
Unfortunately, a few candidates, such as KMT Legislator Lai Shyh-bao (賴士葆) — an economist who is not afraid of defending the party’s policies — were not elected, because they were unwilling to join the groups exchanging support with each other. As bad money drives out good money, the election outcome can only make one sigh.
People support a party because of the policies and ideals it holds. A party should be able to adjust its policies and ideals, but it must make sure that the adjustments are based on public support and speaks up for the people. It is a pity that the KMT has been perfunctory or even absent in policymaking over the past year.
Despite public discontent with the Cabinet’s Forward-looking Infrastructure Development Program and the party’s strong start in its criticism, it all came to nothing in the end. When it came to pension reform, the KMT tried to avoid the issue.
As for Premier William Lai’s (賴清德) pro-Taiwan independence statement, it pretended that nothing happened. No wonder China is not pleased with its performance, while Taiwanese are starting to question the value of its continued existence.
The party’s most urgent task is to provide a review of its defeat in last year’s presidential election, which it has been unable to do after nearly two years.
The party needs a change of pace and must make sure that the local chapter director elections do not continue to hurt the party. Otherwise, it might be further marginalized and become even more invisible in next year’s local government elections.
Chiu Chou-yuan is an independent political commentator and a former member of the National Assembly for the New Party.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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