In the immediate aftermath of the presidential and legislative elections, there were calls for Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) to step down to take responsibility for the results. He has said that he would not do that, apologizing for the presidential election defeat, but saying that the voices for him to stay were louder than those for him to resign, and that he would continue to weather the challenges of the elections of legislative speaker and deputy speaker, and to prepare for opposition in the new legislature.
Precedent demands that he resign. Former KMT chairman Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) did so in January 2020 following President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) landslide victory against KMT presidential nominee Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜). Chu himself did so in January 2016, having lost the presidential election to Tsai, just as Tsai took responsibility for the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) drubbing in the 2022 local elections.
Despite the precedent, there is much to be said for a political leader staying the course in trying times, and not scuttling off when the party is in disarray, and yet the party is not in disarray. Despite its failure to capture the presidency, the KMT has done very well in the legislative elections and would likely have a majority had it not been for the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP).
The KMT does not have a legislative majority, but is, by a hair’s breadth, the largest of the three parties in the legislature. If Chu can convince the TPP to side with it in major votes, it can stymie the DPP’s agenda, although it is yet unclear whether it can necessarily depend on this support.
Then there is Chu’s record as chairman. Despite his comments about how hard he has worked and how much progress the party has made under his leadership, he has been neither particularly effective nor politically astute. Although the KMT did well in the legislative elections, it also lost a significant section of support to “new kid on the block” the TPP. Chu’s failure to do better against it at the ballot box or to tame it in the ill-fated “blue-white alliance” negotiations must be laid at his feet.
Chu is known for his frequent appeals for party unity. That he has to call for it so often is precisely because there has been so little of it. He has held up the party’s performance in the election campaign as evidence of progress, hailing “unprecedented unity” within the party and among KMT supporters.
When he says this, he is presumably disregarding KMT vice presidential candidate Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康) criticizing the shortcomings of its presidential pick, New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜), in his post-election assessment of the loss, the decision not to invite former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) after he strayed from the party line during a pre-election interview with Deutsche Welle, or the large number of former KMT supporters who abandoned the party altogether and voted instead for the TPP.
In terms of unity, you can look at Chu as either long-suffering, hapless or falling short.
After unity, he stressed the importance of the KMT working on behalf of Taiwanese as opposition party. It is important that it does so, because TPP Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) is showing few signs of being a reliable, steady or dutiful leader.
Unfortunately, the KMT has a record of wanton obstructionism in opposition, and in rewarding failure and electoral rejection. From Chu’s sponsorship of ousted former Kaohsiung mayor Han for legislative speaker, it seems that we can only expect more of the same from Chu’s continued leadership.
In the test of whether he should stay the course, he has fallen at the first hurdle.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
A report by the US-based Jamestown Foundation on Tuesday last week warned that China is operating illegal oil drilling inside Taiwan’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Taiwan-controlled Pratas Island (Dongsha, 東沙群島), marking a sharp escalation in Beijing’s “gray zone” tactics. The report said that, starting in July, state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp installed 12 permanent or semi-permanent oil rig structures and dozens of associated ships deep inside Taiwan’s EEZ about 48km from the restricted waters of Pratas Island in the northeast of the South China Sea, islands that are home to a Taiwanese garrison. The rigs not only typify
RSS