The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has nominated New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) as its candidate for next year’s presidential election. The selection process was replete with controversy, mainly because the KMT has never stipulated a set of protocols for its presidential nominations. Yet, viewed from a historical perspective, the KMT has improved to some extent.
There are two fundamental differences between the KMT and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP):
First, the DPP believes that the Republic of China on Taiwan is a sovereign country with independent autonomy, meaning that Taiwan and China are two different entities.
The KMT, on the other hand, believes that everything concerning cross-strait relations should be based on the so-called “1992 consensus,” adhering to the principle of “one China with different interpretations.”
Second, the DPP has insisted on democracy and freedom, whereas the KMT has argued for unification, and rarely talked about democracy or freedom. Hou has somewhat diverged from the KMT line on those issues — at least for now. It is very likely that he will change his stance again.
Hou has been evading questions about the “1992 consensus,” which points to differences not only between the KMT and the DPP, but also between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Hou is aware of this and therefore he sees no need to talk about it.
Moreover, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in 2019 said that China would implement the “one country, two systems” arrangement in Taiwan under Beijing’s “one China” principle. If Hou opposes the arrangement, he would be opposing the “one China” principle. As a result, he never says things in a straightforward way.
Similarly, Hou has said that he refuses to be used as a pawn by a superpower, but he again dares not say that China is also a superpower.
Vice President William Lai (賴清德), the DPP’s presidential candidate, has said that democracy and freedom are in his party’s DNA.
Hou also said the same thing, claiming that democracy and freedom are in the KMT’s DNA.
The DPP has since its founding adhered to democracy as its code of conduct, hence the party’s name. On the contrary, the KMT has been a Leninist party since its conception; it has shown some democratic qualities only because it was passively included in Taiwan’s democratic elections.
Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), for example, was instrumental in establishing a democratic model in Taiwan, but was subsequently expelled from the KMT. This shows that the KMT was forced to participate in democratic politics, but democracy is definitely not in its DNA.
As a presidential candidate, Hou has not yet proposed any clear agenda and it is clear that he lacks a holistic vision to deal with the current situation. Neither is he capable of governing the country.
Yet, compared with Hon Hai Precision Industry Co founder Terry Gou (郭台銘), Hou is still regarded as the KMT’s greatest hope.
When Gou was competing with Hou for the party’s nomination, he kept repeating the tired old KMT cliches, even though he was not a party member. He repeatedly talked about “one China with different interpretations,” accused the DPP of interfering with his procurement of COVID-19 vaccines and said that the government would look after children under the age of six, if he is elected. He even promised to undo President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) pension reforms.
On the issue of war and peace, Gou continued to spread his fantasies about the CCP, falsely believing that as long as he is president, China would not harass Taiwan. It was as if Gou considered himself the head of the CCP’s Central Military Commission.
Gou’s remarks were all about “peace, prosperity and integrity,” leaving out national sovereignty, democracy and freedom. This has several implications:
First, peace without sovereignty means that a dictator would be in charge of everything and nobody would express a different view.
Second, Gou suggested that everyone could prosper just like he did, but is that possible?
Third, integrity is already difficult to achieve even in a democratic system; naturally, it would be even harder to keep it without democracy.
Gou notoriously said that democracy cannot put food on the table. In that case, would he abandon democracy altogether if he became president?
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) of the KMT has yet to congratulate Hou on his nomination.
Ma clearly has a different take on this issue: that the nomination of Hou means that the KMT’s local factions are gaining the upper hand. The heads of cities and counties governed by the KMT belong to the party’s local factions, and most of them support Hou.
Obviously, the power of the KMT’s waishengren (外省人, people who fled from China with the KMT after 1949, and their descendants) elites has been declining.
This is an irreversible development of history. Would Gou have been able to stop such a historical trend?
Paul Lin is a media commentator.
Translated by Emma Liu
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
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
After “Operation Absolute Resolve” to capture former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the US joined Israel on Saturday last week in launching “Operation Epic Fury” to remove Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime leadership team. The two blitzes are widely believed to be a prelude to US President Donald Trump changing the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific region, targeting China’s rise. In the National Security Strategic report released in December last year, the Trump administration made it clear that the US would focus on “restoring American pre-eminence in the Western hemisphere,” and “competing with China economically and militarily
RSS