To no one’s surprise, the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) extempore national congress yesterday almost unanimously passed a motion to void the nomination of Legislative Deputy Speaker Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) as its presidential candidate, giving yet another example that the party is far from being democratic.
About three months ago, the KMT national congress held at the National Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall unanimously passed Hung’s nomination; at the same venue, the extempore national congress yesterday adopted a motion to void Hung’s nomination, which was followed by a proposal to nominate KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫).
This is the first time in Taiwan’s history — and perhaps one of the few examples in the world, if not the first — that a party has replaced its presidential candidate within a few months of the election.
Certainly, it is the KMT’s “family business” to choose its presidential candidate, but as far as the public is concerned, the “replacement drama” might further prove that the KMT remains clueless about operating in a democracy.
It all began by discussing the proposal to void Hung’s nomination.
Before the voting began, delegate Yu Hao (游顥) proposed a motion that the voting be done anonymously. Although Yu’s motion had been endorsed by more than 100 delegates, past the threshold needed to put it to vote, former KMT vice chairman Lin Feng-cheng (林豐正), who presided over the congress, refused to put it on the agenda, saying that the motion could only be discussed if all the delegates who endorsed it were present. However, he agreed to another motion made by Yao Chiang-lin (姚江臨) to vote on whether to void Hung’s nomination through a show of hands.
If there were certain criteria to meet before a proposal could be put on the agenda, why did Lin not question whether Yao’s motion had met them? And if all the delegates who endorse a proposal must be present, then how did the proposal to void Hung’s nomination pass, since more than 1,100 delegates had signed the endorsement, but only 891 attended the meeting?
When delegates proposed that Chu should be nominated to replace Hung, Lin said that, since choosing a presidential candidate is a serious issue, it should be done “very cautiously.”
Many people might be left speechless upon hearing Lin’s way of doing it “very cautiously” meant that delegates who supported the motion needed to stand up and applaud. And that is how the KMT’s new presidential candidate was chosen.
One of the most frequent criticisms of the KMT government is its opaqueness, which has been the primary reason behind much of the opposition toward it, including the Sunflower movement that eventually led to the party’s defeat in the nine-in-one elections last year.
For Taiwanese who were born after martial law was lifted in 1987, “voting through applauding” is something that they might read about in history books, but for the KMT, it is still a part of the decisionmaking process.
With the vast majority of party delegates supporting the proposal to replace Hung with Chu, it would not be an “accident” if everything were done according to party regulations, if that is what worries the party leaders.
However, apparently, the party leadership is unwilling to even pretend that the KMT is a democratic party.
The nomination is the KMT’s own business, but the party’s undemocratic way of handling it should serve as a warning to voters, a reminder that the party must complete its democratic transformation before voters should put their trust in it.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS