The race for the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) chairperson by-election officially started on Monday with four candidates registering. Former deputy legislative speaker Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), whose presidential nomination was rescinded by the party last year, is considered to be the most likely candidate to win. It would be a victorious comeback for Hung, but would it be good news for the KMT?
Hung did not attend a debate organized by the pro-reform KMT sub-groups on Saturday, but her presence was felt nevertheless. Not only because the other three candidates were asked by the media to comment on Hung’s absence, or because Hung was said to have snubbed the debate as she believed she could win the election “lying down.”
Hung can be seen as an agenda setter even in a debate conducted without her, because none of the other candidates present a “real” alternative when it comes to key issues such as cross-strait relations and what stance the party should take when facing young people who are “naturally independence-leaning.” The three candidates who turned up for the debate said young people voted for change due to social justice issues rather than the political divide between the two major parties.
The lack of a “real” alternative was on show as the three candidates sidestepped or rephrased the “China problem” — independence versus unification — as local versus non-local, and dismissed the change in young people’s perception of history — a stance no different from Hung’s in terms of substance or direction. The difference lies only in extent.
During elections, political candidates usually tend to promote moderate ideas in a bid to capture the most votes. However, Hung holds the most extreme views of the four, yet she is winning. It can be asked, then, whether being more moderate, but remaining on the same ideological line with your opponent, could still be considered a winning strategy.
Hung’s likely victory might seem unthinkable, especially after she had her presidential candidacy rescinded due to her “unorthodox” political stance — as the KMT said during the election period — last year.
KMT members’ support for Hung, which has helped her secure more than 80,000 signatures — the most among the four candidates — might be interpreted as making amends for her, as she stepped forward to run for president, but ended up being humiliated by the party.
However, when the mentality of making amends becomes dominant in a race that might define the KMT’s position for the next few years, it remains to be seen whether the party remains hopeful of a possible return to power or if it turns itself into an entity that abides by Beijing’s ideology and becomes marginalized.
The Democratic Progressive Party’s situation in 2008, when it lost the presidency, serves as a contrast. Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), who had been a new type of politician even within the DPP, won the chairpersonship in a head-to-head race — Chai Trong-rong (蔡同榮) had dropped out in the last minute — with Koo Kwang-ming (辜寬敏), a hardline Taiwanese independence advocate.
The DPP’s then-acting chairperson Frank Hsieh (謝長廷), despite meeting strong opposition, had opened up the electorate base by allowing young and new party members to vote in the Tsai-Koo race.
It would be difficult to say that the move determined the result of the election, but real action was taken.
The KMT by-election has been dominated by old politics so far. Hung is a supporter of the anachronistic myth that the Republic of China holds sovereignty over the whole of “China.”
KMT Acting Chairperson Huang Min-hui (黃敏惠), another possible winner, is the representative of the party’s factional politics. Former KMT legislator Apollo Chen (陳學聖) and Taipei City Councilor Lee Hsin (李新) are regarded as reformers, but that is probably why they have little chance of being elected.
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
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.
RSS