The creation of the pan-blue presidential election ticket was a result of negotiations between Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) as well as cooperation between their parties.
They had planned to win the presidency and then decide on how to share power. Unfortunately for them, their plans fell in a heap. But how will they formulate strategy after defeat?
Lien and Soong initially thought that after securing power, many legislators could be recruited to the Cabinet and the rest given priority for nomination in the following term.
They also thought that victory would win them more seats in the legislature in December, thus giving the parties new blood. Whether the two parties should merge after the election was not a pressing issue at the time.
But the cruel reality of one plus one not equaling two has made a post-election KMT-PFP merger impossible. Will the legislative election show that one minus one equals zero?
KMT lawmakers, seeing a difficult campaign ahead, are particularly worried. They are afraid that their party will perish as they risk losing the support of both the "deep blue" and pro-localization factions.
The most optimistic scenario for the KMT was put forward by KMT Legislator Apollo Chen (陳學聖). He proposed that the party let Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) jointly take over party management while Lien and Soong jointly lead the party.
But because the KMT and the PFP will not merge, this proposal does not accommodate Soong or his party, because it regards the pan-blue camp as under the control of the KMT. Campaigning separately for the legislative elections is the best choice for both parties to make.
But coordinating candidates for the legislative election also makes good sense. That is, the two parties could negotiate the number of candidates to be nominated by each party, but each party would have to campaign on its own.
But the KMT definitely will not finance the PFP, despite the former having enormous assets: they are competing with one another for the same pan-blue support.
This is not the only cause of tension between the KMT and the PFP. Most importantly, Lien may end up dealing only with the presidential election dispute in the future, while Wang would likely work on the legislative election and Ma on party reform.
If this scenario becomes a reality, Lien will remain party chairman in name only, with actual power passed down to the next generation of party leaders.
Yet, with the failure of the Lien-Soong ticket, it is unlikely that the KMT and the PFP can continue to substantially work together. There is also a tension that already exists between Wang and Soong, and even more so between Ma and Soong.
There are three issues worth observing from this point on. First, has the post-Lien period already started? Second, will Lien be willing to hand over his power as chairman and control over party assets? Third, how will the KMT and the PFP diverge and how will they compete?
Chin Heng-wei is editor in chief of Contemporary Monthly.
Translated by Jennie Shih
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS