In the three years since the transfer of power, the KMT has not been able to adjust. It demonstrated a high level of resistance to the transfer of power, nearly running itself into the ground in the process. It has been obsessed with whether to nominate a Lien-Soong or Soong-Lien ticket to contest the next presidential election.
After KMT Chairman Lien Chan (
On the surface, the rivalry between Lien and Soong appears to be over. But, this is not a real integration of the KMT and PFP -- it is only a strategic partnership. The relationship is rid-dled with structural contradictions and areas of struggle. Lien and Soong agreed in private that Lien will run for the presidency and Soong the vice presidency. They both know that this marriage of convenience is at odds with a democratic system. Yet, they continue with this outrageous partnership.
In the process, the KMT's vice chairmen, including Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), Wu Po-hsiung (吳伯雄) and Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) have been cast aside. Whether this will provoke strong enough resentment to create internal chaos within the KMT remains to be seen.
Lurking behind the facade of KMT-PFP cooperation are many potential triggers for a breakup. The defeat of Lien and Soong in the 2000 presidential election was caused by a split in the KMT. This split has traumatized them deeply. Their election defeats made them feel like prisoners of war. So, they began to warm up to China, hoping to reduce President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) chances of re-election and to bring about his political demise.
All this generated resentment among party officials in the "nativism" camp within in the KMT. Now Lien and Soong's political marriage has caused rifts between officials at the policy-making level and the policy-implementation level.
Three years ago, when Lien began efforts to reform the KMT, Soong seized the opportunity to organize a one-man party -- the PFP -- and strengthen his position by taking over the KMT's turf, luring many of its lawmakers over to his side, and rallying supporters of the "one country, two systems" model. Because of this, the KMT expelled Soong from the party and even passed a regulation to prevent him from ever coming back.
Yet now Soong is returning, like the official lady of the house, the bride of his former enemy. He seeks to control and manipulate the KMT's party machinery, posing a threat to the party's Central Standing Committee and its lawmakers. The seeds of chaos have been planted within the KMT.
Members of the KMT's nativism camp have come to realize that their party is retaking the path of the old "Chinese KMT." It is rife with schemes and self-interest. There is no party discipline and there are no ideals. The loyalty of the KMT toward this country is also questionable.
In a speech he made before signing the alliance memorandum, Soong indicated that in the future Taiwan will not be a sovereign state independent of China. In other words, the colonization of Taiwan through "one country, two systems" is still Soong's and the PFP's basic tune.
Nor does Soong concede the political reality of this nation. He has never called the people here "the Taiwanese people." Instead, he calls them "the Taiwan general public."
In view of this, there is serious cause for concern that Soong may use his alliance with Lien to send Taiwan into the bosom of China within 20 years.
Lien's position with respect to the nation's future is the "one democratic China" concept advocated by the National Unification Council. His plan is to win the presidency next year and turn this country into a special administrative region of China under the "one country, two systems" model.
He still believes in the myth of "unifying China under the Three Principles of the People." Lien has never said that Taiwan is an independent state. He is deliberately ambiguous about it. He uses slogans such as "quality democracy" and "give the Taiwan public a good life" to pander to voters.
Lien and Soong use flowery phrases such as "quality culture," "the people's happiness" and "the welfare for the people" to conceal the empty, illusory nature of their platforms. This is truly unethical.
Lien should publicly affirm that Taiwan is an independent sovereign country, and that he and Soong are running for the leaderhip of this independent country. Otherwise, his political ambiguity will continue to create doubts about whether he wants to be the ROC's president or chief executive of the "Taiwan special administrative region."
Lien can never be any match for Soong in their power game. The structure and function of their alliance committee indicate that Lien is nothing but a game show host with no real power. Soong has the real power. This is because the nomination groups, campaign strategies and mobilization groups and even the campaign white papers are all Soong's responsibility. Lien's power in election campaign headquarters has been vacuumed out.
What kind of president does Lien want to be? He has never made it clear.
But Soong has made it very clear what kind of vice president he wants to be. He wants to be the real power and the puppetmaster in black.
The "future one China" position advocated by these two men simply postpones the realization of "one country, two systems." Moreover, the Lien-Soong ticket may yet become a Soong-Lien ticket. Let's just keep our eyes open.
Lee Chang-kuei is the president of Taipei Times and a professor emeritus of the National Taiwan University.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS