Deputy Legislative Speaker Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) is still the “presumptive” Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential nominee, awaiting confirmation by a party congress scheduled for next month.
However, with Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) purportedly dropping out of the running in the name of party unity, and the ecstasy with which the nomination of Hung was met by pan-blue supporters — who had been anxiously waiting for a candidate who they could focus their support on — it will be hard for the KMT to surrender its support for Hung.
However, as many of her critics have pointed out, Hung has demonstrated a naivety — even to the point of ineptitude — when it comes to strategic thinking on foreign relations, including cross-strait affairs, an area that the KMT has long touted as its field of expertise.
She brazenly proclaimed she would not visit the US unless she were to be received by higher-ranking officials than those who welcomed Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), resisting an “interview-like” visit and asking the US to come to her if they have misgivings about her. She later backtracked, saying she had merely been “flirtatious” (sa jiao, 撒嬌), only to days later again say that she is not running for “overseas [Taiwanese] representative.”
To say she is a “loose cannon” would be a serious understatement, although Hung might gladly accept the label, as it was once used to describe Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲). However, while Ko was a political novice, Hung has been immersed in politics for more than 25 years.
It is all the more surprising, then, that a recent poll found an overwhelming majority of respondents deemed Hung far less globally oriented than Tsai. In the same poll, Hung’s cross-strait platform, which is based on her proposed “one China, same interpretation” policy, was also not welcomed. On Monday she further stressed that it is an “enhanced version” of the so-called “1992 consensus,” which she admitted had met with opposition from the public and indirectly led to the Sunflower movement.
It is curious that Hung calls for marching toward the “deep-water zone” rather than backtracking, especially while acknowledging that the KMT’s cross-strait policies have been plagued by doubt.
That a potential candidate for a party aiming to win the presidency in a democratic election would willingly surrender a stance that has won it votes in the past, and raise the banner for one of the more extreme positions in Taiwan’s political spectrum, is disconcerting, to say the least.
While characterizing Tsai as “hollow,” Hung has yet to set out her domestic and social policies in any substantial way. That, combined with her going against the grain of the public’s expectations by championing a “scaled-up” version of the “1992 consensus,” has left many wondering what her goal is in running.
Some academics have recently suggested that Hung might be fulfilling the same function as an Internet “troll.” By loudly broadcasting her unification-leaning cross-strait policies, Hung might create a furor over cross-strait affairs, thus setting the agenda for the presidential campaigns and preventing the DPP from focusing its campaign on domestic issues as it plans to.
Hung would then win the votes of those who, while not pro-unification, are vehemently anti-DPP. She could then claim any votes for her as support for her cross-strait stance.
As an advocate of unification, Hung has nothing to lose.
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS