Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founder Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) resigned as TPP chairman yesterday afternoon after meeting with party members. TPP legislative caucus leader Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) was selected to serve as acting chairman in a virtually unanimous show of hands: Huang was the only person present who did not raise their hand in support of his own selection.
Speaking to reporters after the meeting, TPP Taichung chapter head Chiang Ho-shu (江和樹) said that Ko would remain a permanent member of the party, and that his spirit would “forever be there.” He also wanted to remind the party faithful that Ko was forced to stand down because of the allegations of corruption against him, and that he was only doing so because of his love for the party.
Somebody during the meeting had suggested that Ko could remain as an honorary chairman, although Ko himself rejected this idea, Chiang said.
Ko is not only the founder and former chairman of the TPP, he is its spiritual leader. He is facing serious allegations of corruption and breach of trust, for which prosecutors are seeking a prison sentence of more than 28 years and a NT$50 million (US$1.53 million) fine. He was only able to attend yesterday’s emergency meeting in person because he has been allowed out on bail — against prosecutors’ wishes and following rulings by three separate courts — with bail set at a unprecedented NT$70 million and after spending 114 days in a detention center.
It is only right that Ko resign as party chairman, given the allegations against him. Any politician would make this choice. In normal circumstances, the party would demand that a leader under a cloud of suspicion do so for the good of the party. It is not an admission of guilt, it is what is required to remove any distractions to the party’s operations and limit further damage to its image.
However, the TPP is no ordinary party. Even before last year’s presidential election and since its founding in August 2019, it has been regarded as a one-man party, so inextricably linked to its founder that commentators have wondered what it could possibly do without him, asking whether it mattered who its individual legislators were, and even comparing it to a religious cult, with Ko at the head.
One need look no further than what happened at yesterday’s emergency meeting and at Chiang’s comments to the media: The reluctance to allow him to fully resign, the talk of his spirit being forever present, the reminder of the ultimate sacrifice done only out of his love for his disciples. Since the initial indictment against him, Huang has led Ko’s supporters in accusing the government, President William Lai (賴清德) and the judiciary of waging political persecution against their leader. Think Pontius Pilate and Jesus Christ.
This is, indeed, the language of the pious and of religious fervor.
Ko had been granted permission to submit a resignation during his time kept incommunicado in the detention center, but at the time TPP Central Committee member Lin Fu-nan (林富男) had suggested that the central committee would not accept it. With Ko meeting them in person, they have accepted it, however reluctantly.
The question now is, how would the TPP survive without him? More to the point, would his resignation make any difference? Would he still call the shots from the background? Would the party faithful kneel before him and seek spiritual guidance?
Huang is the natural choice to succeed Ko. He has essentially acted as his second-in-command in the legislature, even before the indictment and the detention. Why is he so reluctant to take on the mantle of chairman? What is behind the decision for him to only be acting chairman?
Former US president Jimmy Carter’s legacy regarding Taiwan is a complex tapestry woven with decisions that, while controversial, were instrumental in shaping the nation’s path and its enduring relationship with the US. As the world reflects on Carter’s life and his recent passing at the age of 100, his presidency marked a transformative era in Taiwan-US-China relations, particularly through the landmark decision in 1978 to formally recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the sole legal government of China, effectively derecognizing the Republic of China (ROC) based in Taiwan. That decision continues to influence geopolitical dynamics and Taiwan’s unique
Having enjoyed contributing regular essays to the Liberty Times and Taipei Times now for several years, I feel it is time to pull back. As some of my readers know, I have enjoyed a decades-long relationship with Taiwan. My most recent visit was just a few months ago, when I was invited to deliver a keynote speech at a major conference in Taipei. Unfortunately, my trip intersected with Double Ten celebrations, so I missed the opportunity to call on friends in government, as well as colleagues in the new AIT building, that replaced the old Xin-yi Road complex. I have
On New Year’s Day, it is customary to reflect on what the coming year might bring and how the past has brought about the current juncture. Just as Taiwan is preparing itself for what US president-elect Donald Trump’s second term would mean for its economy, national security and the cross-strait “status quo” this year, the passing of former US president Jimmy Carter on Monday at the age of 100 brought back painful memories of his 1978 decision to stop recognizing the Republic of China as the seat of China in favor of the People’s Republic of China. It is an
After forcing through a slew of controversial amendments, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on Tuesday last week rejected all seven Constiutional Court candidates nominated by President William Lai (賴清德), an event that triggered public concerns that it could lead to an unprecedented constitutional crisis and jeopardize Taiwan’s democracy. The opposition parties on Dec. 20 forced through three controversial amendments to the Public Officials Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法), the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) and the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (憲法訴訟法). The amendment to tighten the recall process has been
RSS