In the past, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) election candidate nominations have really been mere formalities, held largely for appearance’s sake. Basically, the party decides who it wants to nominate and the nominee is rarely challenged. Just a few days ago, the KMT Taipei City branch conducted a poll to nominate the legislative candidate for the Zhongshan (中山)-Songshan (松山) electoral district, and what a show it turned out to be. In the end, it was Legislator Lo Shu-lei (羅淑蕾) who emerged as the victor, beating fellow Legislator John Chiang (蔣孝嚴), one of the party’s bigger names, by a paltry 0.578 percent of the vote. Chiang cried foul, accusing Lo of landing some low blows during the campaign, to which Lo shot back and said that losing by even one vote is still losing. The KMT has now decided to honor the result of the poll, noting Chiang’s complaint, but going with Lo’s victory.
This primary was particularly riveting because the two candidates are high-profile politicians. Chiang is part of the third generation of the Chiang dynasty, deputy chairman of the KMT, a former foreign minister and former secretary-general of both the presidential office and the party. You can’t get much more establishment than John Chiang. Lo is a People First Party (PFP)-recommended pan-blue legislator-at-large. She is a media darling known for her straight talking and criticisms of the government of the day. She has caused a few headaches in her time, but she has entertained quite a few people along the way, too.
Guns out at high noon is a bit of a departure for the KMT. It is more used to having local vote captains orchestrate the whole affair, which in the past has tended to feature rather tame name-calling. This time, however, it seems to have lifted a page from the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) book. For example, in the telephone polls to choose its presidential candidate, several DPP contenders courted controversy by using a system in which callers could only support one candidate. Some KMT contenders followed suit and the two legislators duly went at each other, hammer and tongs. Chiang sallied with acerbic remarks about Lo being “blue skin stretched over green bones” and of “fighting the blue camp whilst flying its flag.”
Chiang’s comments may well reflect the opinions of many within his party. Over the past two years, Lo has launched many an attack on the government during TV interviews. This has set tongues wagging within the KMT, with many members questioning how Lo, as a legislator-at-large, can get away with being so scathing against their party. She is, they say, more DPP than the DPP, and have called, on several occasions, for her to be expelled. However, as a representative figure for the PFP, Lo has blue skin stretched over orange bones, not green. The KMT dare not castigate her too fully, mindful of the importance of the pan-blue alliance.
Lo knows full well that she cannot be nominated again as legislator-at-large. Surprisingly, by daring to challenge the KMT deputy chairman in these primaries, Lo has set a precedent, the effect of which may well snowball. First, her victory demonstrates that family background or status within the party are no longer cast-iron guarantees and that no-one is above the internal democratic test.
Second, it shows the importance of the media in internal party politics. No longer is it sufficient to make the right noises in legislative sessions or be seen to be helping the electorate in one’s district. Nowadays, one also has to show one’s face on TV. Exposure translates into votes. Democracy, for all its strengths, can also have a dumbing down effect.
The KMT noted Chiang’s complaints so he could let off some steam. However, the significance of Lo’s victory runs deeper than her defeat of Chiang. It is a symbolic shift for politics, heralding the winds of change blowing through the KMT.
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