The formation of a “blue-white” alliance between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) for next year’s elections had been delayed for months. Yet the two parties have once again dragged the game into overtime.
After bickering over which methods to use, the two parties on Wednesday finally agreed to a joint presidential ticket using public and internal polling to decide who among New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) of the KMT and TPP Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) would be the presidential candidate and who would be their running mate. The result was to be announced yesterday.
A closed-door meeting attended by Ko, Hou, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) and former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who was acting as a witness, was held on Wednesday. The four men signed a document agreeing to six points. Point three stated that if Hou or Ko won by more than the statistical margin of error, they would get one point, but if the result was within the margin of error, the Hou-led ticket would gain one point. The details of the agreement were hazy, but many people believed that it was more favorable toward Hou. The TPP and Ko immediately faced criticism from supporters asking why Ko had conceded to “unfair” terms.
The two parties yesterday surprised the public by announcing that further negotiations were needed, as they had failed to agree on how the polls should be interpreted — having different understandings of what “statistical margin of error” meant.
The KMT said that the difference in support for a Hou-led ticket and a Ko-led ticket was within the margin of error for five polls, so the Hou-led ticket won five points from six polls, while the TPP said that it has agreed to a margin of error of 3 percent, which it interpreted as plus or minus 1.5 percentage points, so the Ko-led ticket had won three points from six polls, resulting in a draw.
The outcome of the alliances’ joint ticket is again up in the air, and the deadline for candidates to register with the election commission is Friday. Voters should take a hard look at the absurdity of the “blue-white” alliance and re-evaluate its ability to govern.
Ko’s remarks over the past few days should serve as a warning to his supporters regarding the TPP’s one-person decisionmaking mechanism and Ko’s suitability as a leader. Ko once said the things he hates the most are “mosquitoes, cockroaches and the KMT.” He also said the TPP aims to surpass the “green-blue” political divide and create a new political culture, and called for an “open and transparent” democratic government. He betrayed the TPP and his supporters by signing the agreement on Wednesday.
After signing the agreement during a closed-door meeting, contrary to Ko’s constant call for transparency, he admitted that he had overruled a collective decision made by his aides, but said he was “ambushed” by the KMT, and that the TPP would monitor the KMT’s governance if a Hou-led ticket won the election. That is strange, as he is proposing that the vice president monitor the president.
Ko even said he would attend further negotiations with a team of party members, as he is “easily duped” when alone.
Just three days after the KMT and the TPP hailed the agreement as a “historical moment,” the poll result announcement proved their alliance to be just as ambiguous as the so-called “1992 consensus” — a term former Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) in 2006 admitted making up in 2000, referring to a tacit understanding between the KMT and the Chinese government that both sides of the Strait acknowledge there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “China” means.
The TPP and KMT only have an understanding on “removing the Democratic Progressive Party from power,” but seem to have their own interpretations as to what that means.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
RSS