Reform is the buzzword at Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) headquarters these days.
In his second stint as party chairman, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is finally trying to make good on promises to overhaul the creaking dinosaur that is the KMT after failing miserably the first time around.
Ma brought in trusted aide King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) as KMT secretary-general in December to take care of this daunting task, but so far the path to reform has been anything but smooth.
First, King’s high-profile appointment of an outsider as the party’s personnel guru was scuppered when he was forced to resign following lurid media accusations.
Even more worrying for the party, however, is that since the reforms began, two rounds of by-elections have seen the KMT defeated in six out of seven seats, with five of these defeats coming in constituencies considered to be KMT strongholds.
Nevertheless, the party on Wednesday vowed to carry on with reform and continue to nominate what it called “clean and honest” candidates — apparently unaware of or unconcerned about what this implies about the party’s past and present representatives.
Long-time observers of Taiwan and its political environment understand how the nation’s grassroots politics is made up of a complicated web of patronage networks involving powerful families, local clans and temples.
Many would argue that since Taiwan’s democratization, the KMT’s success at maintaining power at the local and legislative levels has been built on its ability to control these intricate networks and keep funds trickling down.
Nominating upstanding candidates in the name of reform may be the righteous thing to do, but in reality ignoring the KMT’s well-connected local faction leaders and allowing the money to dry up is tantamount to political suicide and will surely lead to the votes drying up, resulting in even more defeats.
Abandoning one’s traditional power base is even riskier given the party’s present support rates and its increasing lack of appeal at the national level.
Many people have begun to realize that the Ma they voted for in March 2008 is not the one they received.
No matter how the KMT dresses it up, Ma’s policy of embracing China while banking on Beijing to secure Taiwan’s future prosperity has harmed the nation’s sovereignty and put it on a slippery slope toward unification. This goes against the wishes of the majority, including many who voted for the president the last time around.
If this string of recent results at the polls were repeated in the next legislative elections, it could lead to the previously unthinkable — the KMT losing control of the legislature.
If December’s elections for the mayors of five special municipalities bring more defeats for the party, legislators will begin to get nervous and senior party members will begin to ratchet up the pressure on Ma and his flunkies, severely testing their will to pursue their agenda further.
Should this happen, there can only be one winner — and the smart money will not be on reform prevailing.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS