In the past few weeks, the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) mayoral candidate for Taipei Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) ancestry has come under attack by several pundits.
Since Chiang threw his hat in the ring, he has been purporting himself as the descendant of the Chiang family to garner support from pan-blue voters.
In January, he said that his name “Wan-an” was given to him by his grandfather — former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) — as a reminder of his ancestral roots. On more than one occasion, he stated that he has always been proud of being a Chiang, and that he would follow in his ancestors’ — Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo — footsteps to make Taiwan a better place. He further underscored this lineage by placing an artistic image of himself with Chiang Ching-kuo, side-by-side, on his mayoral campaign flags.
However, not everyone bought into Chiang Wan-an’s account. On a TV show last week, media personality Clara Chou (周玉蔻) accused former KMT vice chairman John Chiang (蔣孝嚴) — Chiang Wan-an’s father — of falsifying his lineage, speculating that major general Guo Libo (郭禮伯), not Chiang Ching-kuo, was John Chiang’s biological father.
In his new book Inside or Outside the Door, media personality and former chairman of pro-China media outlet Want Daily Huang Ching-Lung (黃清龍) agreed with Chou’s theory, but added that DNA testing would be the most accurate way to find out the truth. He also said that his book had nothing to do with the mayoral campaign.
In response, Chiang Wan-an evaded the allegations, saying that his vision and policies for Taipei, not his ancestry, should be the focus of the campaign.
However, Chiang Wan-an’s conduct so far has shown that he has failed to understand what the public seeks in a suitable candidate. Furthermore, he has treated the Chiang surname like a buffet dinner: taking what he needs from the name while evading the baggage that comes with it.
In fact, a candidate’s ancestry has never been of public concern during elections. However, Chiang Wan-an’s erroneous decision to secure “iron votes” — supporters who share feudalistic sentiment for the two former presidents — by underscoring his ancestry, has invited questions and attacks from the pan-green camp and independent voters.
As the recent plagiarism controversy shows, what voters seek in a candidate is honesty and integrity. If Chiang Wan-an had not emphasized his ancestry throughout his campaign, critics and voters would not have cared about who his grandfather was. To make matters worse, his evasion of the issue raised concern that he could be so cunning and manipulative as to deny Guo — his alleged biological grandfather — and exploit the potential benefits of being a Chiang.
In the face of controversy, if Chiang Wan-an hopes for people to vote for him, his response should have been that people have no choice in who their ancestors are, and that he is the one running for mayor. He should have used his experience in the US and his accomplishments as a legislator to support his credentials for the role.
Chiang Wan-an should bear in mind that a politically laden name is both a burden and a blessing. He should be more aware that the public is seeking a leader with a vision and robust polices, rather than a descendant of a prestigious political dynasty.
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS