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
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS