In the second televised presidential election debate, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) expressed regret that his party had not reformed during its eight years in opposition. After the presidential election, I wrote an op-ed in this newspaper arguing that reform of the KMT remained an urgent issue. Today, more than five months later, the KMT still remains unreformed, but party reform has become even more urgent.
The KMT center, and not the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), has become the most important opposition to the Ma government. For example, on July 10, the China Times, one of Taiwan’s most “blue” journals, attacked Ma’s leadership in a damning editorial. Four days later, the Kuomintang News Network, a KMT English-language Web site, circulated a full English translation around the world.
Such KMT attacks on Ma and his government have become commonplace and the most severe strikes come from KMT legislators elected on the party list such as Chiu Yi (邱毅) and Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱). One example of KMT legislators refusing to listen to Ma was their refusal to pass all of his nominees for the Control Yuan despite the KMT’s overwhelming majority in the legislature.
In principle, I agree with Ma’s desire to “separate the party from the government” (黨政分離). But this policy has not worked. With such old, conservative men as KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung, former chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) in charge, the KMT irresponsibly nominated unsuitable people for the legislative elections.
Again, take Chiu as an example. After the 2004 presidential election, Chiu got on a truck and rammed it into the Kaohsiung District Court, a crime that was video-recorded, televised and for which he served a jail term.
Why did the KMT nominate a convicted criminal high on the party list where his election was a certainty? KMT officials said Chiu was rewarded for sacrificing himself for the party. In fact, Chiu and the other critics are beholden to the old conservative men, not to the KMT.
Rather than let the old conservative men run the KMT, Ma should have played a more active role in the nominations. If he had, there would be much less opposition now as many of those now attacking Ma would have failed in their bids to become legislators.
In nominating his Control Yuan list, Ma should have personally met with KMT legislative leaders, noted that his list was carefully constructed to represent different sectors and demanded that the legislature pass all (or none) of his nominees.
Ma’s failure to discuss the issue personally meant that the legislature picked off several somewhat green nominees. He failed in his effort to be a president of all the people, as well as losing face, because he could not control an overwhelmingly KMT legislature.
There is only one solution. To move out the old conservative men, Ma must become the new KMT chairman. In an effort to reform, he can bring in some younger people who believe in reform to help implement it, such as Taoyuan County Commissioner Eric Chu (朱立倫) and Chiayi Mayor Huang Min-hui (黃敏惠) in such roles as secretary-general or vice-chairman.
This must happen very soon as the new team needs to be able to ensure that the nominees for county commissioner and mayor next year are truly interested in reform.
As the opinion polls show, Ma’s presidency is in serious trouble. He has fallen from a high of more than 58 percent of the votes to less than half of the people expressing satisfaction with his government. Some aspects of this decline relate to his foreign and China policies, which seem to differ from his campaign speeches. But, the Diaoyutai (釣魚台) turmoil, for example, would have been much easier to manage had wild KMT legislators not helped create an atmosphere of increasing tension.
Clearly, gaining control of the KMT is much more than a domestic matter. And it is vital to the maintenance of Taiwan’s democratic health. President Ma, please act soon!
Bruce Jacobs is professor of Asian languages and studies and director of the Taiwan Research Unit at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.
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