Thu, Nov 29, 2001 page3

• KMT leadership largely to blame for drop in votes

  • By Bruce Jacobs 家博 /
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  The KMT is a substantial organization and has a great deal of money. If I was a KMT politician, I would be fighting hard to gain control of this asset.

  Why, then, have KMT leaders been leaving the party? And why, as noted in yesterday's Taipei Times, does the KMT have difficulty getting candidates? And why do many KMT candidates fail to mention their party affiliation? What is wrong with Taiwan's former ruling party?

  I would argue one problem is the KMT's current leadership. On Tuesday, the KMT held a press conference for foreign journalists covering the election. KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) fielded all of these questions and left the foreign press corps distinctly unimpressed.

  Lack of dialogue

  One series of questions focused on the so-called "1992 consensus" and cross-strait relations. In response to a question about the "1992 consensus" being a trap for Taiwan, Lien said that the main problem between the two sides is a lack of dialogue.

  He said the "1992 consensus" was a key that could open up the lock preventing dialogue. Lien further said that whatever contributed to discussion across the Strait is a good thing for both sides. Basically, Lien blamed the current government for the lack of dialogue.

  Lien's response raises two questions that unfortunately were not asked at the time. First, since it has always been the Chinese side which has stopped dialogue, how can Taiwan have discussions if the other side does not wish to talk? Second, and more damaging, would Lien seriously maintain that accepting "one country, two systems" -- which would most definitely start a dialogue with China -- is good for Taiwan?

  Lien also criticized the DPP government for its mismanagement of the economy. When asked what the KMT would do to solve Taiwan's economic problems, Lien said that the KMT had put several proposals to the Economic Development Advisory Council (EDAC), which form the basis of the KMT's economic policy. He later admitted that President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) had accepted all of the EDAC proposals and that the DPP and KMT policies for the economy were identical. If the two parties have identical policies for the economy, why should voters choose the KMT?

  Not so `localized'

  Finally, Lien noted that the KMT is the most "localized" (本土) of Taiwan's political parties. It never occurred to him that all four party leaders on the dais with him were mainlanders and that Lien himself has "half-mainlander" (半山) status, being born in China of a Taiwanese father working with the KMT during the Japanese colonial period. If the KMT is so "localized," why were 4.5 of the five KMT leaders facing the foreign press mainlanders?

  It should be noted that Lien had a substantial brains trust with him on the dais, yet he never turned to them for elaboration or comment.

  Lien is undoubtedly a nice man. But he does not perform well in front of audiences and his presidential campaign last year was a disaster both in terms of his performance at rallies and in terms of the votes gained. My own belief is that his wooden performances result, at least in part, from shyness.

  The party chairman may have performed well in the smaller arenas of central governmental and party bureaucratic politics. However, he clearly is not a leader in the larger, more public political arena of vigorous democratic electoral politics.

  Should be flourishing

  With its organization and wealth, the KMT should be flourishing. But in seeking to regain mainlanders' votes lost to the New Party and the PFP -- while hemorrhaging the majority Taiwanese vote base recruited by Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) -- the current KMT leadership is demonstrating an astonishing inability to count votes, a prime requirement for any democratic politician.

  As Lee has suggested, a PhD in political science does not a politician make. Unless the KMT makes some drastic leadership changes after the election, its rapid decline will continue despite its organization and wealth.

  Bruce Jacobs is a professor of Asian Languages and Studies and director of the Taiwan Research Unit at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. He is contributing daily comment for the Taipei Times during the election campaign.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    LA Dodgers show off World Series rings

  • 2

    Homeless Sudan club defy odds in CAF Champions

  • 3

    Hong Kong Sevens settles into new Kai Tak Stadium

  • 4

    Dodgers edge Tigers and Yankees beat Brewers in opening games in the US

  • 5

    Michkov key as Flyers beat Predators