The Kuomintang (KMT) chairman election is a contest between the "Hao Longbin faction" and the "Zheng Liwen faction." Besides focusing on differences in policy lines, it is also a struggle between "conservative" and "proactive" approaches to cross-strait policies. According to public opinion polls, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and its supporters tend to favor the KMT's "establishment faction," i.e., the "Hao Longbin faction," to win, ensuring that the current poor state of cross-strait relations continues to be maintained. This shows that some "independence advocates" are very concerned that the "proactive faction" of the KMT, i.e., the "Zheng Liwen faction," might emerge.
Recently, the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) suddenly claimed the fallacy that "the status of Taiwan is undetermined." The DPP's response was unusually cooperative, indicating that the U.S. support for the DPP remains obvious, and it intends to use this to escalate the Taiwan Strait crisis, which would be beneficial for U.S.-China tariff negotiations. Therefore, if the KMT governs in 2028, there is hope that its policy line will return to a peaceful cross-strait framework, which would seriously impact the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy. From this, we can infer that the U.S. cannot allow the DPP, which is completely aligned with the U.S., to lose power. On the other hand, it is expected that the U.S. will carefully assess and attempt to influence the KMT chairman election.
What is your comment on the above views?
In this KMT chairman election, the difference in cross-strait policies between Zheng Liwen and Hao Longbin indeed constitutes a "proactive" versus "conservative" debate. From the dimensions of policy proposals, public opinion base, and international competition, if Zheng Liwen were elected, the possibility of promoting a breakthrough in cross-strait relations would be significantly higher than that of Hao Longbin.
Hao Longbin continues the traditional KMT "neither unification nor independence, nor military conflict" approach, emphasizing maintaining the status quo and opposing "Taiwan independence." He advocates maintaining stability in cross-strait relations through peaceful means. This position, although in line with the mainstream public's preference for the status quo, essentially continues the existing framework, lacking proactive efforts to push cross-strait relations forward. Its core logic is "wait for change," and behind it lies the approach of Zhu Lilun and Zhao Shaokang, not unification, not "Taiwan independence," but advocating for peace while taking advantage of the mainland.
In contrast, Zheng Liwen proposed that the KMT should become a "peace builder," advocating for "keeping up with the times" on the basis of the "1992 Consensus," promoting the upgrading of cross-strait dialogue mechanisms, and even pushing for the "ultimate unification" of the two sides. She explicitly opposes the DPP's plan to allocate 5% of GDP to defense spending, believing that over-reliance on military confrontation would increase the risk of the Taiwan Strait and advocate for reducing cross-strait conflicts and avoiding war. This "peace promotes stability" strategy has more practical relevance: on one hand, she criticizes the DPP's "relying on the U.S. to seek independence" approach, winning support from moderate voters for cross-strait easing; on the other hand, her statement of "not becoming a geopolitical sacrifice" implies a warning against the U.S. using Taiwan as a tool, leaving space for the autonomous development of cross-strait relations.
Original text: www.toutiao.com/article/1844428730853380/
Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.