When politicians announce their decisions to run for president, a great deal of information about them is revealed, including their core values and their take on ongoing problems, in addition to their planned reforms and other objectives that drive them to pursue their candidacy.
On Oct. 17, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman and presidential candidate Eric Chu (朱立倫) gave the perfect example of how not to launch a presidential campaign. It is not so much that Chu has replaced Deputy Legislative Speaker Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) — the party’s original candidate — by abusing procedural justice as party chairman. Neither is it about his betrayal of the residents of New Taipei City, of which he is mayor, though he has taken time off from the role ahead of January’s election. Rather, it is his unwillingness to reflect on the KMT’s errors, his flawed value judgements, and his failure to get a grip on the nation’s problems and their causes.
Chu said he is running for president because he wants the next generation to be better off than the current generation and for the future to be more hopeful than today.
He also said that if the KMT cannot win the election and secure a majority of seats in the legislature, the nation’s future would be lost.
He seems to have forgotten that, over the past seven years, Taiwanese have twice given the KMT the authority to govern in presidential elections. What they received in return was not a better life or a more hopeful future, but a depressing tomorrow; so depressing that there is hardly any future left for the next generation.
Is Chu so inept that he cannot see this? Issues closely related to social and generational justice — such as tax and year-end bonus reform — were not mentioned in his speech. Does he really care about the younger generation’s future?
Chu said that he decided to break his promise to New Taipei City residents as their mayor and run for president because he wanted to safeguard democracy and let the nation’s next generation enjoy a healthy democracy.
Does he know that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has repeatedly chosen to be at odds with the public? Legislators of the KMT — the majority party in the legislature — have repeatedly preferred to be Ma’s lackeys; they disregarded public opinion and listened to his. When Ma went against the Constitution and the executive exercised its power in a perverse manner, KMT lawmakers did nothing to stop it. They neglected their duty to supervise and provide a counterbalance to the government, as invested by the Constitution. Is this the kind of democracy Chu wants to safeguard?
When Chu mentioned constitutional and legislative reform, he admitted that the constitutional system is flawed in that power is not matched with an equal level of responsibility. Yet he failed to explain why the KMT has repeatedly blocked proposals to reform the legislature’s responsibility of oversight, as proposed by academics and civic groups.
He knows that the legislature cannot effectively counterbalance the executive, as seen in the cross-strait agreement oversight bill and the revision to the Act Governing the Legislative Yuan’s Power (立法院職權行使法).
Also, a proposal to increase the transparency of the legislature by setting up a TV channel for the public to supervise lawmakers has been rejected by KMT legislators.
Perhaps the democracy that Chu has in mind is the kind in which KMT Legislator Chang Ching-chung (張慶忠) pushed through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 30 seconds, or the kind in which lawmakers passed the amendment to the Accounting Act (會計法) in the middle of the night to avoid criminal charges against certain politicians. If the KMT is unwilling to implement even the most fundamental of reforms, how can the public believe it is serious about constitutional reform?
How many Taiwanese still believe that the KMT would reflect upon itself, as Chu claimed it would? Judging by Ma’s Double Ten National Day address, there is not much reflection going on.
If Chu truly wants to make a fresh start, he should at least give a comprehensive review of the Ma administration’s mistakes before proposing new policies. He should also come clean about the mistakes that the KMT has made.
If Chu can do that, he could have a chance to find guidance to move forward, despite his pointless speech. Otherwise, Taiwanese might as well let the KMT fall into utter ruin, for only then will the nation have a real future.
Huang Kuo-chang is chairman of the New Power Party and one of the party’s legislative candidates.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS