KMT against independence: Ma
January 28, 2007
KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou has explicitly declared that the Republic of China’s direction must not be based on opinion polls, and that Taiwan independence is not an option for the Chinese Nationalist Party.
That Ma Ying-jeou would make such a clearcut declaration at such a moment, while under heavy fire from the enforcers of Taiwan independence Political Correctness, is highly encouraging. It suggests that Ma Ying-jeou is finally firming up his ideological stance, and doing so in precisely the right direction.
Had Ma Ying-jeou leaned in the other direction, the wrong direction, by kowtowing to Taiwan independence Political Correctness and pandering to “ben tu” (nativist) mob sentiment, he not only would have made the wrong choice morally, he would have made the wrong choice politically as well. He would have all but doomed his chances of being elected President of the Republic of China in 2008.
Because kowtowing to Taiwan independence Political Correctness and pandering to ben tu mob sentiment might appear politically astute to some Pan Blue leaders, but it most assuredly isn’t. It amounts to political suicide.
Kowtowing to Taiwan independence Political Correctness and pandering to ben tu mob sentiment will never win over enough Pale Green voters to justify the sacrifice of one’s principles, but it will utterly alienate the Deep Blue / Red Shirt Army voters who constitute the hard core of Ma Ying-jeou’s political support.
These voters, who constitute the nucleus of an absolute majority on Taiwan, don’t want ruling DPP kleptocracy, glossed over by means of appeals to “Taiwanese, not Chinese” ethnic solidarity.
These voters have made it abundantly clear that if they wanted what the DPP has been peddling — flagrant corruption plus bigoted nativism, they would have voted for the DPP instead of the KMT.
These voters have made it abundantly clear that if they wanted what the DPP has been peddling, they wouldn’t have handed the Pan Blue alliance consecutive landslide victories during the 2004 Legislative Election and the 2005 County and Municipal Elections.
These voters have made it abundantly clear that if they wanted what the DPP has been peddling, they wouldn’t have taken to the streets over and over again during the past three years, wearing traditional “Chinese Red” shirts and waving Republic of China flags, demanding that a corrupt “ben tu” kleptocracy be swept out of office.
Any KMT Pan Blue campaign manager who doesn’t understand where these loyal supporters of the KMT led Pan Blue political alliance are coming from, is politically blind and politically tone-deaf.
Any Pan Blue political candidate who who offers these stalwart supporters of the KMT led Pan Blue political alliance the same Pan Green snake oil, only in a Pan Blue bottle, will bitterly alienate them, possibly forever.
If anyone is still wondering why the KMT candidate lost the Kaohsiung Mayoral Election in December 2006, he can stop wondering. This is the reason.
In fact of course the KMT candidate won the Kaohsiung Mayoral Election. But as anyone familiar with Taiwan’s “lively / thriving / vibrant” democracy knows, “Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything.”
In order for a Pan Blue candidate to win a key election on today’s Taiwan, he must win it by margin so large that the Pan Green candidate is unable to make up the difference by means of election fraud.
Any Pan Blue candidate who wins an election by a margin narrow enough to make up by means of election fraud has not won, but lost. His “victory” will be washed away by a tidal wave of Pan Green ballots cast by civic-minded voters who “vote once, vote twice” for the candidate of their choice, by “phantom voters” who died stillborn or who are already “Six Feet Under,” or by voters whose votes were bought and paid for, fair and square.
The KMT candidate in Kaohsiung “lost” because he caved in to Taiwan independence Political Correctness and tried to sell Kaohsiung voters Pan Green snake oil in Pan Blue bottles.
Had he stood his ground, and boldly offered Kaohsiung voters a clear alternative, he would not have “lost,” he would have won. He would have won by a margin large enough to ensure his victory in spite of massive 11th hour DPP vote buying and ballot fraud.
In case Pan Blue advocates of “ben tu hua” (desinicization) still don’t get it, allow me to repeat myself.
During Lien Chan’s Journey of Peace to the Chinese mainland, Pan Green demagogues accused the KMT led Pan Blue camp of “ganging up with Chinese Communists against the Taiwanese people.”
A decidedly non ben tu hua (non-desinicized) KMT led Pan Blue camp, basking in the afterglow of Lien Chan’s decidedly non ben tu, nay, anti ben tu scored consecutive landslide victories in the 2004 Legislative Election and the 2005 County and Municipal Elections.
In short, sporting a non ben tu or even anti ben tu political image has proven to be a winning election strategy.
It’s a wonder that Pan Blue advocates of ben tu hua can’t seem to grasp this obvious and politically advantageous fact.
KMT against independence: Ma
Published on Taipei Times
Sunday, Jan 28, 2007
BIG NO NO: The KMT chairman said the country’s future direction should not be based on opinion polls, and that relations with the US, Japan and [mainland] China should also be considered
Taiwanese independence is not an option for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said yesterday, almost a year after running an ad in a local newspaper saying that he recognized independence as an option for the people of Taiwan.
Although Ma has said that the KMT’s policy has not changed — that is, seeking to maintain the status quo — confusion over Ma’s inconsistent stance prompted some KMT grassroots members to ask questions during Ma’s visit to Taichung yesterday on the party’s policy toward China.
“The KMT will not advocate Taiwan’s independence; it will only bring disturbance and agitation to the country if we declare independence,” Ma said in response to the questions, adding that the nation has to take into account US and Japanese concerns involving these issues.
Ma’s lack of a clear discourse on cross-strait issues had given rise to confusion among some KMT members over party policy.
During an interview with Newsweek International in December 2005, Ma said that unification with China was the party’s ultimate goal. The KMT then ran an advertisement last February in the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister paper) which said that Ma recognized that “independence is an option for the Taiwanese people.”
That rhetoric caused widespread criticism from within the party at the time, including former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰), who complained that Ma had not consulted him before making the statement.
Ma later tried to clarify his statement by arguing that the KMT policy of maintaining the status quo had not changed and presenting “five dos” to highlight the KMT’s approach to cross-strait relations.
The five dos are: To resume negotiations based on the so-called “1992 consensus;” to agree upon a peace accord; to facilitate economic exchanges with the aim of establishing a common market; to work with China to boost Taiwan’s presence in international bodies; and to expand educational and cultural exchanges.
Arguing that the KMT would never seek independence, Ma said yesterday that the country’s future should not be decided based solely on opinion polls.