Can Ma Control the KMT Old Guard?

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was in full damage control mode last week, profusely apologizing for the arrogant behavior of his party's legislators and demonstrating, once again, that he has a long way to go before he can control the party that he is effectively supposed to lead.

When Ma became KMT party chairman in 2005, he promised to lead an opposition that would be willing to work with the ruling party. But time and again, from the failure to pass a reasonable arms budget to the KMT's stonewalling of President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) choice of prosecutor general -- a candidate Ma openly supported -- conservative elements in the party threw egg on Ma's face.

Last week's apology came on the heels of KMT legislators Alex Fai (費鴻泰), Lo Ming-tsai (羅明才), Chen Chieh (陳杰) and Luo Shu-lei (羅淑蕾) barging into Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Frank Hsieh's (謝長廷) Taipei campaign office on Wednesday, alleging that state-owned First Commercial Bank had waived the office's rent.

The legislators' behavior sparked verbal and physical clashes with Hsieh supporters, who accusedethem of trespassing. One might call this kind of behavior astounding if it weren't in keeping with what we have come to expect from politicians not held accountable for their actions.

Exceptional, however, were statements made by Ma at a press conference a few days later, which fell on the third anniversary of China's enactment of the "Anti-Secession" Law -- which allows Beijing to use "non-peaceful" means against Taiwan if it sees fit.

"Taiwan enjoys sovereignty, and Taiwan's future should only be decided by Taiwanese people," Ma said.

He then went on to say that he adheres to a "three noes policy" of no unification, no independence and no use of force.

This was a significant departure from statements he made in 2006 to a Hong Kong newspaper, when he said that the "Taiwan problem should be jointly decided by the people on both sides of the [Taiwan] Strait."

Leaving aside the bizarre logic of a "sovereign country" needing to avoid statements on whether or not it is independent, Ma's remarks about Taiwan's sovereignty should be seen as a partial reaction to the behavior of Fai and his ilk.

His language has as much to do with attracting middle-of-the-road voters and distracting the electorate from the presumptuous behavior of KMT legislators as it does sending a symbolic message to the old-boy network that Ma wants to put his stamp on the party. This is why he broke ranks with party ideology.

Ma is not stupid. He knows that the anachronistic pro-China policies of the KMT must give way to localization. But it isn't hard to imagine that a Ma presidency would see him apologizing for and battling with the KMT's old guard still holding on to the reins of power behind the scenes.

Many voters perceive Ma as a politician with integrity and the best chance the KMT has at reform. He has promoted this image for three years without being able to back it up through concrete action.

So the question remains: Can he drag the KMT out of its authoritarian past and bring it more in line with Taiwan's democratic future? And more specifically, does Ma have the ability to take control of his party?

The behavior of KMT legislators and Ma's aura of weakness suggest that he does not.

Taipei Times Editorial, March 19, 2008.