Last month, former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (
To show her support for Lien, KMT Vice Chairwoman Lin Cheng-chi (
Although everyone is aware that Lien and Ma do not get along well, the incident has made the rift between the duo public. Lien said that he was rather surprised when Ma did not show up at the airport when he returned. Lien's closest aides, therefore, berated Ma, for he had made the outside world aware of the bad blood between the two.
In all honesty, according to KMT tradition, the party chairman is the one who should to be sent off and greeted, not someone who has already stepped down. Considering the power structure within the KMT, Ma's unwillingness to see Lien off or welcome him on return is hardly surprising. The question is: Why was Lien surprised? It is evident that Lien does not want to play second fiddle to Ma. After receiving a pat on the head from Chinese President Hu Jintao (
Lien has held a grudge against Ma ever since he stepped down as KMT chairman. Recently he has said that "many things remain unsaid" and he must feel that Ma has given him a raw deal. The pan-green camp's criticism of the KMT-CCP economic forum was understandable.
However, Taipei mayor hopeful and Ma's "chosen" successor, former Taipei deputy mayor Yeh Chin-chuan (葉金川) has openly criticized two trade concessions in the medical field reached at the Lien-Hu meeting, a direct slap in the face for Lien. Perhaps Lien may not care what someone like Yeh, a man without power and position, said, but he will certainly blame it on Ma. The question is: If Ma had showed respect for Lien, would Yeh have dared put Lien down like that?
With Ma's popularity soaring, the only thing that can keep Ma in check is an alliance between Lien and Wang. When KMT Legislator John Chiang (
A new wave of conflict between the mainstream and non-mainstream factions of the KMT has begun, and the battle will be decided on the issues of constitutional amendments and the KMT's primary for Taipei mayoral nominee.
Last week, Hsu visited Lien to explain the conflict between the legislative caucus and the party leadership over the constitutional amendment issue. Afterwards, Lien said that he could not agree with Ma's view that it was inappropriate to discuss the matter and pointed out that any issue should be open for discussion.
In response to Ma's view that the KMT will be spurned and rejected by the public if it were to support yet another amend to the Constitution, Wang said that such a discussion falls within the remit of the legislature, which has a constitutional right and duty to discuss such amendments. Nor did he agree with the party leadership threatening supporters of the amendment with disciplinary measures and rhetorically asked whether the issue was really that serious. Clearly, the issue of constitutional amendment has become a catalyst for conflict within the KMT.
The fact cannot be ignored that those who favor constitutional amendments are well-prepared. Could Lien and Wang become leaders of the faction favoring constitutional amendment and confront those who -- led by Ma -- oppose it? This is not only a constitutional issue but it is also part of the KMT's internal power struggle. It offers Lien and Wang an issue on which to build their strength, and which will test Ma's power within the KMT's legislative caucus.
Regardless of whether the constitutional amendments are passed, the KMT's mainstream and opposing forces are gathering strength. This begs the question: Will this affect the year-end Taipei and Kaohsiung mayoral elections, the 2007 legislative elections and the 2008 presidential election. Will it will lead to another KMT split? Let's wait and see.
Chin Heng-wei is the editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers