Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) is dancing close to the flames in this election campaign. It will be interesting to see how long he survives as chairman if the KMT’s presidential candidate, Kaohsiung Mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜), loses.
Han is wildly popular among the “Han fans,” but many traditional KMT supporters remain unsure about him. Regardless, Wu courted him for the presidential race, shunning former New Taipei City mayor Eric Chu (朱立倫) and Hon Hai Precision Industry founder Terry Gou (郭台銘), both of whom might have been safer bets.
Now, with the release of the party’s legislator-at-large nominees list, which underwent a number of revisions to address controversial choices, Wu is taking another gamble. He is betting that a raft of older candidates in line with the KMT’s traditional pro-China sentiments will attract the votes needed for the party to regain a legislative majority.
However many of the nominees remain problematic.
The most contentious selections on the initial list were former KMT legislator Chiu Yi (邱毅), retired lieutenant general Wu Sz-huai (吳斯懷), retired National Police University associate professor Yeh Yu-lan (葉毓蘭) and Wu Den-yih himself.
Chiu, who later withdrew his name, previously supported China’s annexation of Taiwan through military means. Wu Sz-huai’s loyalty to Taiwan has been questioned since he attended a 2016 event in Beijing, featuring a speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), and was seen standing during a rendition of the Chinese national anthem. Yeh has caused controversy by calling Hong Kong pro-democracy protestors “rioters.”
The higher on the list a nominee’s name is, the better the chance they have of getting a seat. Yeh is positioned at No. 2, Wu Sz-huai at No. 4 and Wu Den-yih at No. 14, down from No. 10 on the initial list, which had opened him up to accusations of abuse of power. Chiu had been at No. 8.
Nominees are a strong indication of a party’s priorities and intended trajectory. The polemic nature of Wu Sz-huai, Yeh and Chiu was exacerbated by their high placement on the list.
Wu Den-yih has defended the list, saying in an interview on Tuesday that the process was the most open, transparent and fair in the party’s history, as well as devoid of favoritism and self-interest. He also suggested that the party was up in the opinion polls since its release.
Tell that to Chu, who on Monday said that the list had harmed Han’s campaign and might even negatively impact KMT candidates vying for seats in electoral districts.
Or tell it to former premier Simon Chang (張善政), Han’s pick for vice president, who yesterday refused to endorse the list, suggesting that voters unhappy with it could vote for another party.
According to a TVBS poll on voter intentions following the list’s release, 33 percent of respondents said they support the KMT, 4 percentage points down from the previous poll, while a United Daily News poll released on Monday found that 44 percent of respondents had decided which of the main parties to vote for, of whom 29 percent said they would vote for the KMT, which was down from 59 percent in a September poll.
Wu Den-yih is gambling on his party winning the presidency and a legislative majority with a maverick presidential candidate and a controversial, pro-China selection of legislator-at-large choices.
Yet he is in a bit of a predicament: If Han loses, Wu would almost certainly take the fall as KMT chairman, but if Han wins, he would most likely push for the party chairmanship himself.
However, Wu has an ace up his sleeve. If he is elected as a legislator, he would remain in a position of influence. Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) has also suggested that Wu has his eyes set on becoming legislative speaker.
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
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
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
RSS