On Monday, Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) publicly announced that he intends to run for the chairmanship of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in May. In making the announcement, preceding an official announcement by KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) that he intends to step down, Ma would seem to be mounting a challenge -- and creating a different impression from the mild and modest manner he has cultivated in the past.
In the last day or two, Taiwan's political commentators have begun to discuss the pros and cons of Ma's bid. If the KMT's new chairman is directly elected by the party's roughly one million members -- a break from the ugly tradition of the incumbent chairman appointing his successor -- it will certainly serve as the first step towards democracy within the party. What is funny is that the KMT, which is more than one hundred years old, has started to democratize only after losing power. What a long wait it has been for its members.
Since the KMT lost its hold on power in the 2000 presidential election, its historical burden has become unbearably heavy. The problems the KMT has to resolve include national identity, ill-gotten party assets, party pensions and the merger with the People First Party (PFP). The new chairman of the KMT will have to face up to all these problems. Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), who has not yet announced that he will run for the KMT chairmanship, is considered sophisticated and proficient at behind-the-scenes maneuvering, and therefore more suitable for the KMT chairmanship. If Ma takes over the chairmanship, the KMT's merger with the PFP will fizzle out immediately, for PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) is politically senior to Ma, and will naturally refuse to take orders from him. Therefore, the chances for a merger are slim if Ma is elected.
Those who favor Ma argue that although Wang is better at political strategy, he will not have the guts to tackle the issue of KMT party assets. The public is likely to be more accepting of moves to reform the KMT if they are proposed by the more charismatic Ma. The public now believes that KMT members can no longer ignore the fact that the party assets are monopolized by a powerful few. If Ma becomes the party chairman, he will certainly hope to throw off the historical baggage that prevents the KMT from regaining its hold on power.
If Wang becomes KMT chairman, his impartiality to preside over legislative sessions in his role as speaker will be challenged by the DPP and other parties. This is why Wang supports Lien to continue as KMT chairman.
But Ma has always been careful to protect his image, and has cultivated a reputation of being akin to political Teflon. As a result, he also has very few allies within the KMT who will support him all the way. Some critics have said that Ma's political career has been a smooth ride and that he is like a hothouse flower, who has needed a protective environment in order to thrive. And even in the relatively straightforward environment of the Taipei City Government, recent incidents have greatly damaged Ma's reputation, making it clear that he still lacks sufficient leadership ability. This line of reasoning is Ma's biggest obstacle.
The KMT is the nation's biggest political party in terms of members and wealth. For this reason, the people of Taiwan should be concerned about who will become the party's next chairman. But actually it is immaterial who assumes the post. What is really important is whether the KMT is able to undergo internal reform. Now that Ma has thrown his hat into the ring, he should come forward to outline the measures he will undertake to reform the KMT. The emphasis should be on reform, not on who wins the struggle for power. It is also in line with the high expectations that many people have for Ma.
But can the KMT survive without its ill-gotten assets? This is a question that is well worth asking. It is also a question with which we can measure the sincerity of Ma's intentions to reform the party.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS