Taiwan's main opposition party is not facing its greatest challenge from the strength of its rivals, but from a deeper and more persistent issue: the erosion of internal political ethics.
The recent controversy surrounding Hsiao Ching-yen (蕭敬嚴), a former Kuomintang (KMT) spokesperson seeking the party's nomination for a New Taipei City council seat, has brought that problem into sharp focus. But the significance of the case lies less in the individual than in what it reveals about a broader pattern within the party.
In recent years, a growing number of KMT politicians have built their public profiles by criticizing their own colleagues on political talk shows and media platforms. These appearances often target figures within the party rather than its political opponents, creating a cycle in which internal attacks generate visibility, attention, and personal political capital.
This dynamic reflects a shift in incentives. Criticizing one's own party is often more likely to attract media coverage than confronting rival parties, while also allowing politicians to cultivate an image of independence or candor. Over time, however, this strategy has blurred the line between internal accountability and political opportunism, weakening the party's ability to maintain cohesion and discipline.
The Hsiao controversy illustrates the consequences of this trend. His past appearances on pan-Green talk shows, where he frequently criticized KMT figures and even publicly attacked those who had supported his career, have raised doubts within the party about whether he can credibly represent it. Senior KMT legislators, including Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) and Yeh Yuan-chih (葉元之), have openly opposed his candidacy, with Yeh warning that nominating him could effectively benefit the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
When such criticism is voiced publicly by party insiders, the issue is no longer confined to an internal nomination dispute. It becomes a reflection of the party's political culture — and of its capacity to define and enforce its own standards.
A comparison with how the DPP recently handled its own internal controversy further highlights the contrast. When DPP legislator Wang Ting-yu (王定宇) was involved in a personal conduct scandal, senior party figures responded quickly and publicly. Hsu Kuo-yung (徐國勇), the party's secretary-general, signaled dissatisfaction, while President Lai Ching-te (賴清德), who also serves as DPP chairman, called on party members in public life to hold themselves to a higher standard. Reports also emerged that the party was considering removing Wang from his position on the Central Standing Committee.
Whether such responses amount to meaningful discipline is open to debate. But the key difference lies in the reaction itself. Public acknowledgment, value signaling, and leadership accountability all serve to maintain a party's internal coherence.
The KMT's response to the Hsiao case, by contrast, has been notably muted. Despite the controversy and internal criticism, party leadership has largely remained silent, offering no clear position on what constitutes acceptable conduct for its candidates. The absence of an institutional response has allowed the issue to be framed as a personal matter rather than a question of party standards.
This silence points to a deeper structural challenge. When party leaders themselves are seen as engaging in similar patterns of internal criticism or inconsistent standards, the ability to enforce discipline becomes further compromised. That concern has also touched Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), the KMT chairwoman referenced in the original argument, whose own public conduct has drawn criticism for inconsistency. The result is a self-reinforcing political culture in which internal attacks are normalized, while shared principles remain undefined.
For any political party, long-term viability depends not only on electoral performance but also on internal coherence — the presence of shared norms that guide behavior and collective action. When those norms erode, the party's capacity to function as a unified political force is weakened from within.
What the KMT faces today is not simply a momentary controversy, but a broader test of its institutional identity. Without a clearer commitment to internal standards and accountability, the party risks confronting a challenge more serious than electoral competition: the gradual loss of the ethical foundation that sustains it.
*The author is a senior media professional.
