The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) suffered a colossal defeat in the Jan. 11 presidential and legislative elections. However, instead of reflecting on its “innumerable failings,” such as sexism, dissemination of fake news and a pro-China stance, it has focused on policies that it believes led to its loss — including cross-strait discourse.
As a young Taiwanese undergraduate student of political science, I would like to tell KMT members: You have got it all wrong.
Many have argued that young people came out in droves to vote for President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) in part not because they were satisfied with her or the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) governance, but because they were worried about the nation’s future if the KMT candidate, Kaohsiung Mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) — a country bumpkin in young people’s minds — were to win.
The proof is in the split-ticket voting for legislators-at-large.
While young people overwhelmingly voted for the DPP’s Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文)-William Lai (賴清德) ticket for the presidency, they split their party vote, allowing the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) to secure five seats, while the New Power Party (NPP) got three. In contrast, the DPP only got 13 legislator-at-large seats.
If one were to convert the Tsai-Lai ticket’s 8.17 million votes into seats, the DPP should have garnered more than 25 seats. The reason is simple: While young people wanted to see Tsai re-elected, they also favored smaller parties to serve as a third force in the legislature to check and balance the central government.
Given these circumstances, the KMT’s reflection is headed in the wrong direction.
First, the KMT’s cross-strait discourse is not the problem per se — but rather its pro-China stance and ideology. The party needs to stop claiming that Beijing would use force if Taiwan were to declare independence. Such a wrong precondition — repeatedly intimidating Taiwanese on behalf of China — fails to recognize that Beijing has never intended to give up hostilities or remove missiles directed at Taiwan whether or not Taiwan declares independence.
As it is, Taiwan is already an independent country called the Republic of China, Taiwan — as Tsai said in a BBC interview.
The solution is to abandon its pro-China position and recognize that the so-called “1992 consensus” is moot. The term, coined by former Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起), refers to a meeting in 1992 between the representatives of the People’s Republic of China and the KMT in which they reached a tacit understanding, yet remain divided over its definition.
For the KMT, the Chinese Communist Party (CPP) and the DPP the interpretations all differ.
It is pointless to debate the definition of the “1992 consensus,” as it is no longer important. During the three televised platform presentations and the presidential debate before the election, the three presidential candidates barely mentioned the term in regard to cross-strait policy.
It is time to conceptualize what Tsai proposed in her re-election victory speech — “peace, parity, democracy and dialogue” serving as the basis for cross-strait interaction and long-term stable development. It could be called the “Taiwan consensus,” a term that Tsai adopted to replace the “1992 consensus” in 2012, when she ran against then-president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
With a new and strong mandate from Taiwanese, the “Taiwan consensus” is more legitimate. This concept could bring Taiwan to a critical juncture where it can interact not only with China, but with the rest of the world, including countries forced to adhere to the “one China” policy.
Under this principle, all should respect the will of Taiwanese people.
Second, as former US president Abraham Lincoln said: “No party can command respect which sustains this year what it opposed the last.”
Some KMT insiders have said that the party failed because it was not in line with mainstream public opinion on issues such as same-sex marriage. This so-called reflection is ironic and at the same time difficult to understand.
In the 2018 referendum, the KMT was busy mobilizing voters to support two proposals against same-sex marriage and one proposal against same-sex education initiated by anti-LGBT advocates. The KMT, along with some groups, started rumors that same-sex marriage would create an AIDS epidemic and further drive down the nation’s birthrate.
What is worse is the party played the same old trick in this year’s election, but the public — especially young people — punished them with a firm vote this time.
The KMT’s problem is it is not on the same page with public opinion. The crux of the problem is whether it truly believes in our shared values — democracy, freedom and respect for human rights. The survival of the party hangs in the balance.
If the KMT still refuses to face the music and lives in an echo chamber surrounded by more outdated ideology and little respect for the way of life in Taiwan, it should keep in mind that more young people would be entitled to vote in the next election.
The structure of voters will change in the next decade, and young voters are setting even higher criteria that politicians need to meet in line with the values they hold so dear.
Huang Yu-zhe is an undergraduate student of political science at Soochow University and has been accepted to National Chengchi University’s Graduate Institute of Law and Interdisciplinary Studies.
China badly misread Japan. It sought to intimidate Tokyo into silence on Taiwan. Instead, it has achieved the opposite by hardening Japanese resolve. By trying to bludgeon a major power like Japan into accepting its “red lines” — above all on Taiwan — China laid bare the raw coercive logic of compellence now driving its foreign policy toward Asian states. From the Taiwan Strait and the East and South China Seas to the Himalayan frontier, Beijing has increasingly relied on economic warfare, diplomatic intimidation and military pressure to bend neighbors to its will. Confident in its growing power, China appeared to believe
After more than three weeks since the Honduran elections took place, its National Electoral Council finally certified the new president of Honduras. During the campaign, the two leading contenders, Nasry Asfura and Salvador Nasralla, who according to the council were separated by 27,026 votes in the final tally, promised to restore diplomatic ties with Taiwan if elected. Nasralla refused to accept the result and said that he would challenge all the irregularities in court. However, with formal recognition from the US and rapid acknowledgment from key regional governments, including Argentina and Panama, a reversal of the results appears institutionally and politically
In 2009, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) made a welcome move to offer in-house contracts to all outsourced employees. It was a step forward for labor relations and the enterprise facing long-standing issues around outsourcing. TSMC founder Morris Chang (張忠謀) once said: “Anything that goes against basic values and principles must be reformed regardless of the cost — on this, there can be no compromise.” The quote is a testament to a core belief of the company’s culture: Injustices must be faced head-on and set right. If TSMC can be clear on its convictions, then should the Ministry of Education
Legislators of the opposition parties, consisting of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), on Friday moved to initiate impeachment proceedings against President William Lai (賴清德). They accused Lai of undermining the nation’s constitutional order and democracy. For anyone who has been paying attention to the actions of the KMT and the TPP in the legislature since they gained a combined majority in February last year, pushing through constitutionally dubious legislation, defunding the Control Yuan and ensuring that the Constitutional Court is unable to operate properly, such an accusation borders the absurd. That they are basing this
RSS