The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is taking stock of its defeat in the Kaohsiung mayoral by-election on Saturday last week, and promising to adjust its course and reflect on its failings.
This election result is not an isolated defeat: It is the most recent in a string of major defeats this year alone, including the presidential election in January and the recall of the Kaohsiung mayor — the hapless Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) — in June. All three were related to Han, who only two years ago rode to victory on the so-called “Han wave.”
On Sunday, KMT caucus whip Lin Wei-chou (林為洲) opined that it was now time for the party to bid farewell to the Han wave, and to treat the whole phenomenon as a “legend.”
Legends are historical circumstances that may or may not have occurred. The Han wave certainly did happen. More importantly, legends derive their status from their ability to captivate the imagination of a group or nation, and sometimes even define that group or nation’s sense of identity and purpose.
In this way, Lin is correct in saying the Han wave should be treated as a legend, but that is precisely why it is not going to suddenly lose its power over the people whose imaginations it captivated, and why a divorce from Han is going to be a lot messier than simply saying goodbye.
Legends often consist of a story with a persuasive moral message woven into its narrative structure, generally with a charismatic central character.
The Han wave has two of these: the story of the hero’s meteoric ascent from political obscurity and a populist charisma that completely overshadowed that of his Democratic Progressive Party rival at the time, former vice premier Chen Chi-mai (陳其邁).
In a twist of fate worthy of legends, Chen won the by-election by a landslide.
Unfortunately for the KMT, the Han wave completely lacked any persuasive moral message, a strong vision for the party’s future or a firm understanding of its values that could have united the party.
Han is no King Arthur or Cao Cao (曹操); he is closer to an Ah-Q (阿Q) or Don Quixote figure, well-meaning and utterly convinced of his abilities, but having a complex relationship with reality.
This is the man that the KMT allowed to take it into the presidential election, and for many KMT members and supporters, defined the party and its message.
His political career having collapsed after his recall, Han has left a void in terms of the party’s vision.
KMT Chairman Johnny Chiang (江啟臣) is not to blame for this predicament. It was his predecessor, former KMT chairman Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), who allowed the party to be hijacked by Han. Unlike the star-struck “Han fans,” Wu knew Han’s limitations, but decided not to look a gift horse in the mouth, and opened up the path for him to become the party’s presidential nominee.
However, since he became chairman in January, Chiang has mumbled about vague ideas for reform. His strategy going into the by-election — not trying to win, just trying not to lose — was defeatist from the outset and a lost opportunity in terms of presenting a strong, unified political vision for the party.
Many elements within the KMT may well wish to see the back of Han and the Han wave phenomenon, but it is not going to vanish into thin air or become the stuff of legends with no bearing on the present.
Meanwhile, Chiang has shown himself to be qualified only as a caretaker chairman until a stronger figure takes the reins.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS