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.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS