The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) held a meeting ahead of discussions to potentially hash out a pact between their presidential nominees, seeking to determine who is the “strongest presidential candidate”: New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) of the KMT or TPP Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲).
With both parties holding firm to their stance and refusing to back down, no consensus was reached as Taiwan counts down to January’s election.
The TPP recommended hiring five polling organizations to conduct head-to-head polls between Ko and Hou, and determining the winner by averaging the polls, with half conducted by landline and half by mobile phone.
Former KMT secretary-general King Pu-tsung (金溥聰), Hou’s campaign manager, proposed an open primary, setting up polling stations in the 73 legislative constituencies across Taiwan.
People would have their national IDs checked and would have to sign a statement declaring that they “identify with the political direction to form an opposition alliance to oust the Democratic Progressive Party.”
While King tried to downplay the tight schedule, Ko said that an open primary has not been held in Taiwan for about 20 years and would be difficult to organize, expensive and problematic.
There are only 22 days left until Nov. 10, the deadline the KMT proposed for a primary. With all the challenges of expense, logistics and personnel requirements, it would be difficult to arrange a nationwide primary at such short notice.
Moreover, there are dangers that turnout would be low and the process would be interfered with.
There is also a high likelihood of a lack of representation in the results, bringing more trouble and controversy than it is worth.
Furthermore, while the TPP’s forte is new media, cyberspace and interaction with young people, the KMT’s local factions exert considerable influence over elections, making the idea of an open primary a “rigged” game, with the odds clearly favoring the KMT.
Even if the open primary system has been used for years in other democratic countries, King’s proposal is unrealistic and impractical given the circumstances and the fast-approaching deadline.
King either has his head in the clouds or harbors a malicious agenda.
As a century-old party, the KMT’s “big-brother mindset” has led it to propose the fanciful idea of an open primary to force the TPP into an unfair game. If the TPP does not concede, it would risk being labeled a “troublemaker” for undermining potential collaboration, while the KMT would have the perfect excuse if it loses at the polls in January.
If things do not go its way in the presidential election without a deal with the TPP, the KMT would have no qualms about passing the buck to the younger party.
Despite King’s image, he has failed to give the problem a “clean-cut” solution, instead inciting a “knives out” mentality and complicating the plan to collaborate.
The “blue” and “white” political camps seem to need each other, but proposals for their future together might be futile.
A plan for the KMT and the TPP to unify is a charade. It might be nothing but a dream founded on a “game of thrones.”
Su Wei-cheng is a lecturer and a former secretary to the president of the Legislative Yuan.
Translated by Rita Wang
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