It might be expected that supporters of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) would be pleased to see so many candidates competing in the party’s presidential primary, but the situation is not so simple. KMT supporters are more likely to feel anxious, given the intensified wrangling between KMT Chairman Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), Hon Hai Group chairman Terry Gou (郭台銘) and Kaohsiung Mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜).
These prominent figures have churned up grassroots support, causing a web of faultlines throughout the party base.
Without Wu, who is infamous for his U-turns, the primary would have been a traditional competition between Wu, former New Taipei City mayor Eric Chu (朱立倫) and KMT Legislator Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), and the nomination process would have been as smooth as it has been in the past.
Instead, it has turned into a mess. This applies only to the party’s internal affairs and does not take into account the influence of the Chinese Communist Party, an external factor rarely absent in Taiwanese elections.
People might wonder what difference it makes, as long as the candidates are members of the KMT.
However, there is a clear line of demarcation from previous primaries. If the competition were a typical one among party elites, it would develop mainly in accordance with considerations over who showed the most competence to draw votes across groups based on categories such as gender and ethnicity.
Competitions such as this are highly predictable.
However, this year is completely different, as the pattern has been disrupted. While the “Han wave” — a surge of public support for Han prior to his win in Kaohsiung on Nov. 24 last year — is still strong, sweeping away traditional political elites, Gou on April 16 took advantage of Matsu mania amid pilgrimages for the goddess of the sea. At one point, Gou’s popularity seems to have diluted and overwhelmed Han’s.
However, despite Han and Gou sharing surface similarities — both are descendants of Mainlanders, their political careers are not particularly prominent and they are both at least 60 years old, which probably makes them seem similar — the days since their bids were announced have made it clear that Han and Gou draw different crowds representing completely different parts of society.
“Generation” and even “class” have become the categories that set supporters of Han and Guo apart.
Try to imagine the following scenario: The pan-blue camp is divided by opinions on localization and then divided according to preferences among female voters. Then the issues of a candidate being down-to-earth and popularity among young people divide the party twice more.
Speech styles — with Han appropriating the image of a traditional market vendor and Gou being chairman of a conglomerate — divide supporters into even smaller groups.
With one cut following another, the pan-blue camp is finding itself diced and disintegrating.
The KMT faces disintegration due to the intense power struggle, while external forces are also adding fuel to the flames.
Han’s road to pursuing the presidency next year was clearly marked. His visits to Malaysia and Singapore in late February were the first step; his trip to Hong Kong, Macau, Shenzhen and Xiamen late last month was his China pilgrimage; while his visit to the US in the name of academic exchange this month was essentially to test the waters. Surrounded by his ardent supporters, Han appeared to be riding the crest of his own wave.
However, on April 12, Han proposed that Taiwan should rely on “the US for national defense, Japan for technology, China for the market and itself for hard work” at a closed-door seminar at Harvard University. The slogan was an unexpected turning point, arousing Beijing’s anger and crossing its red line.
Curiously, Gou the next day responded to Han’s bullet-point statement on Facebook, saying that “Taiwan should rely on peace for national defense.”
Attending an event hosted by the American Institute in Taiwan on April 15, Gou clarified his comment by saying that the US is not a reliable partner for Taiwan’s national defense, bewildering many.
Having seized the spotlight for three days, Gou showed his cards by announcing that he was to participate in the KMT primary and would not accept direct recruitment by the party headquarters. The move suggests that Gou was attempting to put an abrupt end to the “Han wave” before the Kaohsiung mayor could return from the US.
China’s response to Gou throwing Han into disarray was upbeat. Its hawkish mouthpiece, the state-run Global Times, published an editorial on the night of Gou’s announcement, saying that if he were to be elected as leader of the “Taiwan area,” cross-strait tensions would be alleviated and it would probably be a significant turning point that improves the cross-strait situation in the short run.
The opinion piece differed drastically from a warning issued by China National Radio, another hawkish Chinese state-run mouthpiece, which said that Han should face disciplinary action for his Harvard statement.
China will never stop pushing communism and authoritarianism, and Beijing’s influence certainly slices another chunk off the pan-blue camp.
Chinese sage Lao Tzu (老子) wrote: “To govern a big state is akin to cooking small fish.”
Curiously enough, putting the Chinese characters for Wu, Gou and Han together gives the Chinese word for a species of tilapia.
They certainly are small fish in this scenario. It might be best if they stayed away from the flames.
Tzou Jiing-wen is editor-in-chief of the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper).
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs