Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Johnny Chiang (江啟臣), tasked with reforming the party and returning it to the viable political force that it once was, is faced with a Gordian knot. The complexities of the job ahead go beyond appealing to a younger generation of voters.
Chiang might have to decide between jettisoning much of what the party originally stood for and preparing it for a return to the Presidential Office, or doubling down on its founding purpose and representing what is increasingly, in the current state of Taiwanese politics, a minority view.
The KMT, as the founding party and self-proclaimed champion of the Republic of China (ROC), held sway over the nation for decades, initially under martial law as an uncontested authoritarian regime, and then as the architect of the nation’s economic development and — albeit forced by a grassroots pro-democracy movement — democratization.
It has not fared well in the post-democratic period, with the exception of its landslide victory in 2008 that was, at least partially, attributable to the perception among the electorate that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) under former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) had become corrupt.
When the KMT had control over the curriculum, media, judiciary and parameters of public discourse, the ROC ideology was sustainable. This is less true after the DPP has had the chance to partially dismantle the KMT’s old party-state apparatus, amend parts of the curriculum and influence public discourse.
Another important trend has been the “natural independence” phenomenon, caused by a generation that has an increasingly higher proportion of people who identify as Taiwanese, not Chinese. A recent survey found that 83 percent identify as Taiwanese, while only 5 percent identify as Chinese.
On Tuesday last week, Chiang perfectly summarized the complexity of the situation, saying: “I was born and raised in Taiwan. I am Taiwanese… From the perspective of blood origin, culture and history, I am also Chinese... On the basis of the ROC Constitution, I am an ROC national.”
He added that the Constitution defined the territory of the ROC — including China — and that the model, short of constitutional amendments, would remain unchanged.
In doing so, he has wedded himself and the party to a vision of the ROC, as encapsulated in the Constitution, which is wildly at odds with objective fact and reality.
If he could abandon this conception and follow a more realistic vision for the nation, appealing more effectively to the majority view of the electorate and to the younger generation, he might stand more of a chance of returning the party to the Presidential Office.
To complicate matters, Chiang must be mindful of representing the party’s young members, many of whom did not vote for him in the March 7 chairperson by-election. His rival, former Taipei mayor and KMT vice chairman Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌), did slightly better among those younger than 40. Chiang enjoyed far more support among 60 to 69-year-olds — garnering more than 40 percent, compared with less than 10 percent for Hau.
Another problem is that some young KMT members have views that differ from those of the wider electorate. Some have said that the KMT should return to the concept of the ROC safeguarding a “Free China.”
Concerned that the party has drifted away from being a defender of democracy and become too close to the Chinese Communist Party, they want the KMT to return to this vision and to articulate it more effectively.
The question is, can Chiang bring these contradicting trends — stronger identification with Taiwan and a newly reinforced affiliation to the ROC and KMT of the past — under one tent?
With its passing of Hong Kong’s new National Security Law, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) continues to tighten its noose on Hong Kong. Gone is the broken 1997 promise that Hong Kong would have free, democratic elections by 2017. Gone also is any semblance that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) plays the long game. All the CCP had to do was hold the fort until 2047, when the “one country, two systems” framework would end and Hong Kong would rejoin the “motherland.” It would be a “demonstration-free” event. Instead, with the seemingly benevolent velvet glove off, the CCP has revealed its true iron
At the end of last month, Paraguayan Ambassador to Taiwan Marcial Bobadilla Guillen told a group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators that his president had decided to maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan, despite pressure from the Chinese government and local businesses who would like to see a switch to Beijing. This followed the Paraguayan Senate earlier this year voting against a proposal to establish ties with China in exchange for medical supplies. This constituted a double rebuke of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) diplomatic agenda in a six-month span from Taiwan’s only diplomatic ally in South America. Last year, Tuvalu rejected an
US President Donald Trump’s administration on Friday last week announced it would impose sanctions on the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a vast paramilitary organization that is directly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and has been linked to human rights violations against Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang. The sanctions follow US travel bans against other Xinjiang officials and the passage of the US Hong Kong Autonomy Act, which authorizes targeted sanctions against mainland Chinese and Hong Kong officials, in response to Beijing’s imposition of national security legislation on the territory. The sanctions against the corps would be implemented
US President Donald Trump on Thursday issued executive orders barring Americans from conducting business with WeChat owner Tencent Holdings and ByteDance, the Beijing-based owner of popular video-sharing app TikTok. The orders are to take effect 45 days after they were signed, which is Sept. 20. The orders accuse WeChat of helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) review and remove content that it considers to be politically sensitive, and of using fabricated news to benefit itself. The White House has accused TikTok of collecting users’ information, location data and browsing histories, which could be used by the Chinese government, and pose