In the past few weeks, the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) mayoral candidate for Taipei Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) ancestry has come under attack by several pundits.
Since Chiang threw his hat in the ring, he has been purporting himself as the descendant of the Chiang family to garner support from pan-blue voters.
In January, he said that his name “Wan-an” was given to him by his grandfather — former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) — as a reminder of his ancestral roots. On more than one occasion, he stated that he has always been proud of being a Chiang, and that he would follow in his ancestors’ — Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo — footsteps to make Taiwan a better place. He further underscored this lineage by placing an artistic image of himself with Chiang Ching-kuo, side-by-side, on his mayoral campaign flags.
However, not everyone bought into Chiang Wan-an’s account. On a TV show last week, media personality Clara Chou (周玉蔻) accused former KMT vice chairman John Chiang (蔣孝嚴) — Chiang Wan-an’s father — of falsifying his lineage, speculating that major general Guo Libo (郭禮伯), not Chiang Ching-kuo, was John Chiang’s biological father.
In his new book Inside or Outside the Door, media personality and former chairman of pro-China media outlet Want Daily Huang Ching-Lung (黃清龍) agreed with Chou’s theory, but added that DNA testing would be the most accurate way to find out the truth. He also said that his book had nothing to do with the mayoral campaign.
In response, Chiang Wan-an evaded the allegations, saying that his vision and policies for Taipei, not his ancestry, should be the focus of the campaign.
However, Chiang Wan-an’s conduct so far has shown that he has failed to understand what the public seeks in a suitable candidate. Furthermore, he has treated the Chiang surname like a buffet dinner: taking what he needs from the name while evading the baggage that comes with it.
In fact, a candidate’s ancestry has never been of public concern during elections. However, Chiang Wan-an’s erroneous decision to secure “iron votes” — supporters who share feudalistic sentiment for the two former presidents — by underscoring his ancestry, has invited questions and attacks from the pan-green camp and independent voters.
As the recent plagiarism controversy shows, what voters seek in a candidate is honesty and integrity. If Chiang Wan-an had not emphasized his ancestry throughout his campaign, critics and voters would not have cared about who his grandfather was. To make matters worse, his evasion of the issue raised concern that he could be so cunning and manipulative as to deny Guo — his alleged biological grandfather — and exploit the potential benefits of being a Chiang.
In the face of controversy, if Chiang Wan-an hopes for people to vote for him, his response should have been that people have no choice in who their ancestors are, and that he is the one running for mayor. He should have used his experience in the US and his accomplishments as a legislator to support his credentials for the role.
Chiang Wan-an should bear in mind that a politically laden name is both a burden and a blessing. He should be more aware that the public is seeking a leader with a vision and robust polices, rather than a descendant of a prestigious political dynasty.
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS