Meet Cheng Li-wen, the new Chair of KMT

The bold, female politician embodies a badly-needed generational change within the 113-year-old opposition party.

The election for the Chair of the Kuomintang (KMT), the opposition party in Taiwan, was concluded on October 18. Cheng Li-wen was elected as the new party chair.

At noon on October 19, the KMT Central Committee received a congratulatory message from Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC). Chair-elect Cheng Li-wen has sent a reply expressing her gratitude.

The texts of both messages are as follows, per KMT

The letter first congratulated Ms. Cheng Li-wen on her election as Chair of the Kuomintang, affirming that over the years, the two parties have upheld the common political foundation of the “1992 Consensus” and opposition to “Taiwan independence.” Based on this shared ground, the two sides have promoted cross-Strait exchanges and cooperation, worked to safeguard peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, and enhanced the kinship and well-being of compatriots on both sides — achieving positive results.

The message noted that “the world is undergoing profound changes unseen in a century, while the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation is an unstoppable historical trend.” It expressed the hope that the two parties would continue to uphold their common political foundation, unite the broad masses of Taiwan compatriots, strengthen their national pride and confidence as Chinese people, deepen exchanges and cooperation, promote joint development, advance national reunification, and resolutely safeguard the shared home of the Chinese nation and the fundamental interests of compatriots on both sides of the Strait — working hand in hand to create an even brighter future for the Chinese nation.”

The KMT’s reply expressed appreciation for the congratulatory message and reaffirmed that the two sides of the Strait reached the “1992 Consensus,” under which each side, through its own oral formulation, expressed adherence to the principle of one China.

The reply stated that, on the common political foundation of upholding the 1992 Consensus and opposing Taiwan independence, the Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China have promoted the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations and achieved many historic accomplishments — something that has not come easily.

It continued people on both sides of the Strait are descendants of the Yan and Huang Emperors and members of the Chinese nation. Facing the current situation, the two parties should, on the basis of past achievements, further strengthen cross-Strait exchanges and cooperation, promote peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, seek the greatest possible well-being for people on both sides, and open a grand new chapter for national rejuvenation.

Cheng rode the wave of generational change, embodying the bold and combative image that many grassroots KMT members had been hoping for. The 113-year-old political party’s members have grown weary of the same old faces and now place high expectations on the younger Cheng Li-wen, hoping she will lead the KMT into a new era and inject fresh vitality into the party.

In a live interview streamed online on September 9, Cheng sat down with Chen Chih-han, known as Kuan Chang in Taiwan, or Guanzhang in the Chinese mainland.

Below is a summary of Cheng’s views in the interview, followed by the full transcript.

---

A regional outlook rooted in realism

Cheng begins with what she calls “strategic reality.” “The chance of war across the Taiwan Strait is extremely low,” she said, noting that the People’s Liberation Army’s reach now extends “beyond the first island chain.” To her, war would be “the dumbest choice imaginable,” devastating Taiwan without serving anyone’s interests. “They consider Taiwanese to be compatriots,” she added, arguing that Beijing’s posture is aimed less at coercion than at deterring external provocation.

Quoting a familiar mainland phrase — “we don’t live in a peaceful world, but our country is a peaceful country” — Cheng described Beijing’s latest military parade not as saber-rattling toward Taiwan, but as a message to Washington: a warning against “waging proxy wars on other people’s soil.” She defended former KMT chair Hung Hsiu-chu’s cross-Strait visits as principled diplomacy — “to promote peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, in the region, and even globally.”

Cross-Strait reconciliation as self-determination

Cheng repeatedly returned to the theme of agency. “We need to take back the initiative and our voice—starting with cross-Strait reconciliation led by both sides, so outsiders can’t play us off each other,” she said. For her, peace is not passive — it is a deliberate exercise of will. “Only reconciliation, cooperation, and peace can truly let people in Taiwan live and work without fear.”

She dismisses both “unification” and “independence” as slogans detached from people’s lives. “Our goal today isn’t ‘unification’ or ‘independence.’ My goal is simple: that ordinary people can live in peace, build a livelihood, chase their dreams.” Declaring Taiwan independence, she warned, is “a dead end.” Her alternative is what she calls a “century-long foundation for peace,” sustained by “organic linkages in the economy, infrastructure, education, and public security.” Peace, in her view, grows from familiarity, not from formulas.

“As for the end state,” she said, “it should take its natural course. I want to see 23 million people here happy, and 1.4 billion there happy too.” The metric, for Cheng, is not sovereignty but well-being: “With the capacities on both sides, we can build cooperation so the world says: ‘This place everyone thought was on the brink of war not only isn’t at war; it’s thriving.’”

Reforming Taiwan’s politics with discipline and trust

Cheng’s reform agenda begins at home. “We’ve become masters of infighting, amateurs at out-fighting,” she conceded about her own party. Her goal, she said, is “a reborn KMT—a fresh spirit, real generational change, so we can win back the trust and participation of Taiwan’s young people.” That renewal starts with what she called “rules, rules, rules—no black boxes, no backroom deals, no private anointing.” For Cheng, democratic credibility depends as much on process as on policy.

Her criticism of the ruling DPP was pointed but principled. “Lai Ching-te is pushing for Taiwan independence and fascist rule,” she said, accusing the government of politicizing the judiciary. She questioned the direction of defense spending — “Why are we pouring money into war? Why are we pushing our kids toward the battlefield instead of investing in peace?” — and noted that Taiwan’s defense budget, now more than 3 percent of GDP, is proportionally higher than that of Japan or South Korea. “The KMT has a critical choice to make: war or peace,” she said — a refrain that threads through her entire platform.

Balancing relations with Washington

Cheng’s view of the United States is pragmatic, not polemical. The Trump administration’s “tariff tsunami,” she warned, could “wipe out decades of Taiwan’s economic capital.” To preserve its resilience, Taiwan should “reduce its dependence on the U.S. market” and seek diversification through trade with the mainland and ASEAN.

Her tone toward Washington was skeptical but measured. “We don’t have to let the U.S. hold us hostage, making us pay ‘protection money’ just because they say Taiwan’s at risk… Why hand so much money to the U.S.?” At the same time, she stressed that “we’re not out to make enemies of the United States or to harm America.” Quoting Beijing’s own line — “we don’t seek enmity with the United States” — she argued that true stability requires “win-win cooperation, shared prosperity, and peace.” Healthy cross-Strait ties, she said, “would benefit the whole world.”

Recasting Taiwan’s opposition for a new generation

Cheng’s political method is rooted in coalition-building and credibility. “The first, most basic thing is selflessness… Second, integrity matters—if we agree on something, it has to stand,” she said of future cooperation with the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). “It’s not about the KMT and the TPP carving up a fixed pie. I want the two parties to grow the pie—not just 50 percent, but 60, even 70.” She pledged to begin regular coordination “at full speed” and hoped to “show clear progress by year’s end.”

Her broader target is what she calls the DPP’s “malign power,” which, in her words, has “torn Taiwan apart, hollowed out its institutions, and poisoned the hearts of our young people.” Taiwan, she concluded, “must never again tolerate political persecutions like the one Ko Wen-je faced.”

Guanzhang

Alright, friends—welcome back. I think everyone already knows today’s guest, right? Please welcome Li-wen.

Cheng Li-wen

Hello, Guanzhang, and hello to everyone watching.

Guanzhang

So, after the July 26 and August 23 votes, and then all the buzz around the Ko Wen-je case, Taiwan’s politics seem to have cooled off. The only thing still drawing heat is the KMT chair race. I’m seeing talk that nine people are running. Is that right?

Cheng Li-wen

That’s the number who’ve announced so far. Because the election timeline was pushed back by two weeks, the window to pick up and submit registration forms only open next week. How many will actually register in the end—we don’t know yet. One of the people who had declared, Chang Ya-ping, said today she’s bowing out. Still, people are saying this might be a record, possibly the most ever to sign up for a KMT chair race. Good or bad, I’m taking it as a positive sign: it shows people really care about who leads the KMT. Some see this as a great opportunity to put their ideas on the table—about the party’s future or about cross-Strait relations. I think that’s healthy. For example, the Changhua County Council speaker and one of our Central Committee members have both spoken up with views on the party and Taiwan’s political landscape—that’s good, too.

But it does point to another issue: if there isn’t a chairmanship race, do these important views have nowhere to be heard? Is there no space inside the party for everyone to speak freely and have an open debate?

It raises a further question: do you only get heard when you run for party chair? If so, well, we have hundreds of thousands of members. Does the party HQ hear and value their views? If not, that suggests our lateral communication is broken.

Guanzhang

In my view, before those two votes on July 26 and August 23, the KMT was falling apart—totally in disarray.

Cheng Li-wen

Yes, especially before the recall waves ended 31 to 0 against removal, we were trying to push back against the Great Recall, but failed across the board. Not only did we fail, but we got hounded and basically crushed.

Guanzhang

People were embarrassed, and their confidence collapsed.

Cheng Li-wen

Exactly. Morale was really low.

Guanzhang

What about now? It’s like a company that was about to go under suddenly took off. Its stock is soaring, and now everyone wants to be CEO.

Cheng Li-wen

As if everyone just got a shot of adrenaline.

Guanzhang

Right. Back then, folks were out on the streets, standing up for people who were under pressure. What’s your take on that? Personally, I have to ask: is it just because things look great now that so many people are suddenly jumping in, spotting an opportunity and rushing to grab it?

Cheng Li-wen

That’s exactly the mindset we must avoid. In every rough patch, when things are critical, does anyone have the courage to stand on the front line, shoulder the pressure, and push back against injustice? When our brothers and sisters, like Huang Lu Chin-ju, were taken away, held, or indicted, did the party stand firmly with them, or pretend not to notice?

Guanzhang

At those moments, did anyone show up outside the Taipei District Court, or check in on them and really show concern?

Cheng Li-wen

Back then, it was mostly just Huang Lu Chin-ju. She finally made bail—hugely unfair in her case. But we still have over a hundred party staffers who were indicted because of the Great Recall campaign; some are still being held. Can the party just look the other way? The party should stand by them to the end and actually care about what happens to them.

That’s why when I saw Ko Wen-je come out yesterday, after being held for a year, that felt utterly lawless to me. Yet throughout that year, TPP supporters never left him; they often gathered outside the detention centre in Taipei to show support. I got a call from Ying Hsiao-wei yesterday—she said every time she heard the cheering from TPP supporters, it felt like a knife to the heart. Those were TPP supporters out there. So where were the KMT supporters? I saw Ko walk out yesterday—you were there too—and the place was packed to the rafters. That kind of bond matters.

As for the KMT? Like I said, our staffers aren’t celebrities; they don’t have Ko’s popularity or name recognition. But were they sacrificing for the party? Are they being detained or indicted for political reasons? If someone truly broke the law, that’s on them—fair enough. But this is a political case, and the KMT has to back them to the hilt; otherwise, who’s going to dare stand up for the KMT next time? That’s why you just asked the right question: when things are tough, dangerous even, where is the KMT? And then, the moment the wind turns in our favour, suddenly everyone pops out of the woodwork.

This is also why people keep saying: sure, we did well on July 26 and August 23, but the KMT mustn’t get arrogant or complacent. There were so many other reasons: dissatisfaction with Lai Ching-te’s government; support from TPP voters; people across society feeling they’d had enough—and yes, Trump’s 100% tariffs pushed even swing voters and pocketbook voters over the edge, driving turnout higher than anyone expected. But we must not give the impression that, just because the outlook is bright, some folks are already jockeying for 2026 or 2028 and carving up positions. Even the slightest whiff of that would be terrible. This is exactly the moment to work with extra care, as if walking on thin ice, because we can’t let Taiwanese people down. People want to vote out Lai Ching-te; the last thing they want to see is our own side infighting and elbowing for advantage.

KMT has staged this kind of ugly drama too many times; there’s nothing to hide about that. Doing it again will only chill the hearts of our members and supporters. So when I say we need to step up, I mean: show people, through actions, that we deserve their trust.

Guanzhang

Why are you so determined to run? You know the KMT’s structure is hard to change. And as a woman, presumably one of the “delicate” sex, how are you going to change things? Why step into the chair race, and once you’re in, how will you turn the party around?

Cheng Li-wen

Indeed, for years, the KMT has given outsiders the impression of faction-ridden politics, palace intrigue, and a culture of backroom compromise.

Guanzhang

No loyalty. Everyone just looks out for themselves.

Cheng Li-wen

Dodging when there’s trouble, then rushing out the moment there are spoils to grab—that’s exactly what we must root out. We’ve become “masters of infighting, amateurs at out-fighting”: when it comes to opponents outside, we don’t dare compete or push back; inside, we scramble to carve up the pie. That kind of behaviour turns people off—they won’t back the KMT. It’s a long-standing ailment of the party, and it’s why our supporters feel so let down.

As for why I’m running—thank you, Guanzhang, by the way. No one has ever called me a “delicate” woman until you did—haha. More importantly, I’ve said this many times: this is a critical moment. Inside Taiwan, you can see Lai Ching-te pushing for Taiwan independence and fascist rule. He will likely try to seize Taiwan’s democracy, not just muzzling the media but even bending the judiciary into a tool against dissent, and doing it bluntly, without regard for how people see it. He has been labelling people as “pro-CPC” at the drop of a hat, which only deepens the rifts in Taiwan.

What worries me even more is that the world has changed. With the “tariff tsunami” coming from the Trump administration, decades of Taiwan’s economic capital could be wiped out. This is when we must reset our thinking. If Lai’s daily posture is to “confront China” at such a critical moment, he ends up handing Taiwan’s agency and voice to Washington, leaving Taiwan as a bargaining chip between the U.S. and Beijing and letting China-U.S. deals decide the fate of Taiwan. That’s unacceptable. So I keep stressing this: we need to take back the initiative and our voice—starting with cross-Strait reconciliation led by both sides, so outsiders can’t play us off each other. Why should we tear each other apart? That’s the stupidest path. Yet every day we’re told the Strait is on a knife-edge and war could break out at any time. This isn’t scare talk—war could break out at any time. Young people who didn’t have to serve before now do and should be prepared for war at any time. Isn’t that absurd? And this year our national defence budget is at a record high, amounting to one-third of the annual budget and a bit over 3 per cent of GDP.

Why is it that Japan spends only about 1.8 per cent of GDP on defence, and South Korea, right next to North Korea, around 2.3 per cent? Washington has been pressing NATO, Japan, and South Korea as well, but only Taiwan has abruptly lifted defence outlays to more than 3 per cent of GDP. Why only Taiwan? That’s NT$945 billion—how many other priorities does that squeeze out? Why are we pouring money into war? Why are we pushing our kids toward the battlefield instead of investing in peace? This is exactly why I’m running for party chair: the KMT has a critical choice to make—war or peace. Only cross-Strait reconciliation, cooperation, and peace can truly let people in Taiwan live and work without fear. On my way here, a friend who’d just returned from Russia told me they saw young men on the streets with legs or arms blown off, fresh back from the front. Do we really want Taiwan to “fight to the last man,” as Su Tseng-chang said? What does “to the last man” mean? Every last Taiwanese dead? Is that worth it?

Guanzhang

After watching the Sept. 3 Victory Day parade, I don’t know if our audience includes any military buffs, but it really was fascinating. Netizens on the mainland were joking that even military experts were stumped—many of them couldn’t even tell what some of those new weapons were.

Cheng Li-wen

They haven’t seen it, so they don’t know what to make of it.

Guanzhang

Faced with that overwhelming show of force, Lai Ching-te made some laughable comments today. He said, “It’s not that we don’t want to talk—we do want to talk.” Honestly, that’s nonsense. Now he’s even using the line about how “when you’re holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” He says he wants dialogue, but he is such a petty man—daring people to “just try it” on one hand, while threatening to go after them on the other. You remember the pressure he put on me—I went to the mainland twice, and look how I was smeared. And now he says he wants talks?

Cheng Li-wen

He’s done plenty of intimidating you, too.

Guanzhang

Yes. Now I want to get to the point. When I came back from Shanghai, I went to the party office—and I mean the Chinese KMT office. Over the past decade, the KMT has drifted toward the centre to chase votes. People now call it the “Taiwanese KMT”—like the DPP calls itself the Taiwanese DPP. It has lost its Chinese identity; a bunch of Chinese people won’t even say they’re Chinese. As KMT chair, you’re squeezed between the U.S. and China. And in this awkward and powerless (after the Sept. 3 parade) state, and since Taiwan is so small, what bargaining chips do you really have?

I want to ask you two things, Li-wen. First: cross-Strait issues are an old problem, but Taiwan is getting weaker—why? Our population is ageing, birth rates are falling, cities are ageing, the economy is a mess and being picked over by outsiders. How will you handle this? In short, how would you manage U.S.–China relations? What’s your basic approach? Some argue for cross-Strait peace, some for maintaining the status quo, some say eventual reunification is inevitable, others call for integration—what I advocate as “moving forward together.” Then there are the pro-U.S. voices—“I love America, I want to be American, I want to be America’s dog, I’ll buy U.S. arms, I’ll let America plunder us, or else they’ll attack us,” just like the DPP. So, as KMT chair, I find that a strange position. In that awkward space, how exactly would you respond?

Cheng Li-wen

You mentioned the Sept. 3 parade, that show of force. We all heard the joke that pizza shops near the Pentagon got slammed because staff were glued to their screens trying to identify the hardware on display, and then had to redo a lot of their assessments.

What that parade makes clear is this: first, the chance of war across the Taiwan Strait is extremely low. Why? Because the PLA’s capabilities now go well beyond the first island chain, not only to the second, and can even directly threaten the U.S. homeland. What does that mean? That means Beijing doesn’t have to limit itself to treating the Taiwan Strait as the battlefield. To me, that would be the dumbest choice and would be walking right into America’s trap. If you turn Taiwan into the battlefield—like the DPP, which follows the Americans and says Taiwan should become a “porcupine”—and keep buying lots of armoured vehicles, then you are exactly making Taiwan the battlefield.

Guanzhang

Like Ukraine.

Cheng Li-wen

Fighting a war here in Taiwan would be the dumbest thing imaginable. You’d not only flatten the economy, but also wipe out a generation of young people and reduce Taiwan to ruins. At that point, all the talk about “unification” or “independence” would be a joke. Turning Taiwan into a battlefield is the most foolish option, and I don’t believe Beijing wants that either. After all, they consider Taiwanese to be compatriots. Are they really so foolish that they’d fall for an American trap that has us slaughter one another and leave Taiwan destroyed? Do you honestly think the mainland wants a ruined Taiwan? Of course not.

So it’s very clear what we’re seeing. The PLA showcased its powerful, world-class military—why? Who was it warning? Not us. It was warning the U.S. military: don’t let the Western powers keep interfering in other countries’ internal affairs the way they did in the past, or waging proxy wars on other people’s soil. We’ve seen too many tragedies like that, whether in the Middle East or in Latin America, wars fought as proxy battles between major powers. Beijing has repeated this message time and again. They show these capabilities because—let me borrow their own phrasing—“we don’t live in a peaceful world, but our country is a peaceful country.” In a time when conflicts can flare up anywhere, and some wars are already ongoing, such power is meant to preserve peace, not provoke war. That’s why I support Hung Hsiu-chu.

That’s why I support Hung Hsiu-chu. Did she go to the mainland to ask the PLA to attack Taiwan? Of course not. Quite the opposite—her purpose was to promote peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, in the region, and even globally. That’s my point: after watching the Sept. 3 parade, you can see Beijing was sending a clear message to Washington—don’t act recklessly, and don’t try to stir up unnecessary confrontation in or near China’s waters.

First, is this good for Taiwan? I think the chances of a war breaking out in the Taiwan Strait are very low, unless Lai Ching-te, regardless of cost or consequence, provokes Beijing by pushing Taiwan independence. But I see that as highly unlikely, and it’s certainly not what we want.

Now, given this major shift, Taiwan used to be America’s front line, the first island chain facing the PRC. But that Cold War setup should be over. The world ought to be reconciling, opening markets, globalising so everyone can make money, escape poverty, do business, and travel. That’s the path toward a more peaceful world. Instead, Washington abruptly changed course and cast China as an adversary, trying to revive Cold War confrontation and even stoking the Russia-Ukraine war—turning Russia into one front and China into another, dragging the world back into division and perhaps toward a third world war.

My first point is this: from Taiwan’s perspective, we should be a key to peace, not someone else’s pawn that helps manufacture or ignite a war.

Second—what everyone cares about: the trade war. Faced with Trump’s indiscriminate, blanket tariffs, of course, Taiwan needs to reduce its dependence on the U.S. market. That’s not just Taiwan’s view—people around the world who are thinking sanely see it the same way. And if you want to lean less on the U.S. market, the logic is straightforward: everyone knows how important the Chinese market is; it’s a rising market. Beijing keeps stressing liberalisation, openness, and a level playing field—unlike America’s unequal economic rules. All of that is meant to ensure that the mainland market is free, open, fair, and competitive. Taiwan needs to enter the mainland market.

And it’s not just the mainland—Taiwan should be looking to ASEAN and the broader Southeast Asian market. That’s the fresh lifeblood and the viable path for our economy today. All the more so because we share language and culture with the mainland. Why did we sign the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) back then? Exactly for this reason. The DPP has railed against it for years, but even now, they don’t dare cut it off.

Guanzhang

Exactly. Cut ECFA, and Taiwan would be ruined.

Cheng Li-wen

So if we’re talking economics, the mainland and the ASEAN markets are our leverage. With that, we don’t need war, and we don’t have to let the U.S. hold us Guanzhangage, making us pay “protection money” just because they say Taiwan’s at risk. Otherwise, why on earth are we throwing NT$945 billion around? Why hand so much money to the U.S.? Meanwhile, our legislature says we should improve pay and benefits for career soldiers. Lai Ching-te says there’s no money—yet there’s NT$945 billion for the U.S., but not for our own professionals in uniform. Is that really defending Taiwan? Is that really strengthening our armed forces? No—it’s protection money. And it won’t make the Strait safer; it pushes us toward danger.

So first, cross-Strait questions should be resolved peacefully by the two sides themselves, without outside powers wedging us apart. If we manage that, Taiwan will no longer be kept under constant blackmail. Second, on the economy and markets: when the U.S. decides to “kidnap” TSMC, we just let it happen; when they say our semiconductor industry can’t do business with the mainland, we meekly comply and sever the “red supply chain.” Lai talks about “supply chain partnerships for democracies,” but after all that talk and all that compliance, we’re just cutting off our own future—that’s unwise.

So to answer your question plainly: Taiwan cannot keep going the way Lai Ching-te is steering it. That’s digging our own grave. Cutting ties with the mainland in markets and other exchanges, and taking our cues wholesale from Washington is foolish in the extreme, and self-destructive. I’ll add this, too: in the U.S., at least half the country is against Trump—It’s not just people around the world who have issues with his policies.

Guanzhang

Right. He went to a ball game the other day—this made the news—and half the crowd booed. You could hear it across the stadium. It was ugly, really ugly: one side jeering, the other side cheering.

Cheng Li-wen

Isn’t he turning the Ministry of National Defence into a “Ministry of War”? If it’s a defence ministry, it’s supposed to deal with external threats. But Trump—he talks about sending troops into Chicago, into America’s own cities. The U.S. looks like it’s having a civil war. Even Americans can’t stomach it anymore.

Beijing, for its part, keeps saying it doesn’t seek enmity with the United States. So why do something that hurts others and doesn’t help yourself? The U.S. is still the world’s leading power—but will making sure no one else has a decent life fix America’s problems? It won’t. The only real goal we should share is win-win cooperation, shared prosperity, and peace. Why cast ourselves as enemies? Chinese people are not a nation bent on militarism or foreign aggression. We’ve said time and again that shared prosperity and win-win outcomes are the way forward, so why go against our own interests and the rest of the world?

People in Taiwan need to be smart: don’t just trail behind Washington’s missteps. We should have agency and a clear sense of our own interests, rather than becoming Washington’s pawn or letting ourselves be bled dry. That’s unwise. Taiwan cannot cut itself off from the mainland—this is my point. If Taiwan’s talent, our outstanding young people and innovative capacities could stand on the shoulders of a giant, on the mainland’s shoulders, that would give us real confidence to shine on the world stage. Strong joining with strong—isn’t it good? Why turn on each other and stoke hatred? Where does all that hatred even come from? Any past historical grievances can be resolved, let alone anything from just the last few decades. We should be figuring out how to build peace, not pouring our resources and efforts into the path of war.

Guanzhang

The KMT–TPP alliance. Over the past year—well, the past half-year—you and I really put in the work, Li-wen. We pulled together a big opposition alliance with History Bro, Tsai Pi-ru, and many other friends.

Cheng Li-wen

Chen Pei-che, and many more, Hsiao Hsu-chen…

Guanzhang

That phase ended. At the time, a lot of people asked me: “Guanzhang, aren’t you afraid the KMT will sell you out? You’re backing the KMT so strongly—especially during the Great Recall—aren’t you worried the KMT and TPP will fall out later?” I was confident and said, “I’m willing to be the super-glue between KMT and TPP.”

Cheng Li-wen

That’s great.

Guanzhang

But now the wind is at our backs. I worry the KMT might be getting a bit carried away—maybe because nine people are running for chair? Next up, the big test is 2026—the nine-in-one local elections are coming fast. And I haven’t really heard a plan from the KMT yet, maybe because it’s in the middle of the chair race.

So, how do we make the KMT–TPP alliance real? Li-wen, if you become chair, please say it clearly: what kind of mechanism do you want? For county and city mayors, how should the KMT and TPP work together? And for 2028, decisions basically have to be made by 2027. Can you spell it out? We’ve all heard too much empty talk. The 2023 KMT–TPP split was an ugly scene: bickering over poll numbers, arguing about just a few percentage points, King Pu-tsung, and even reading aloud each other’s private text messages on camera. Both camps were supposed to be a powerhouse when joined. Funniest thing is even Taiwan...

Cheng Li-wen

Even Taiwan couldn’t pull this off.

Guanzhang

Right. And you’re talking about persuading 1.4 billion people across the Strait, convincing officials on the mainland, which outnumber ours by seventy to one. Each province has that many people. That’s hard. My point is: if we can’t even get our act together here in Taiwan—just 23 million people—and KMT and TPP both have their own ideas… Even though, to be fair, the TPP did put in a lot of work recently, otherwise we wouldn’t have done this well in the Great Recall. So if you become party chair, how will you—let me ask on behalf of the TPP supporters—how will you stop us from falling back into that 2023 fiasco? How do we cooperate in a way that becomes a real, repeatable model?

Cheng Li-wen

I think the first, most basic thing is selflessness. For politicians, especially a party chair, if everything is about your own calculations and scheming, nothing will work. Second, integrity matters—if you can’t even be honest with people inside your own party. During KMT–TPP talks, you have to mean what you say. If we agree on something, it has to stand. You can’t come back later with a new “interpretation,” or overturn it after the fact. Integrity is essential. These principles are essential.

Next, and I’ve said this many times, we need to lay everything on the table. The new party chair must have a tight, regular line of communication with Huang Kuo-chang. What does a KMT–TPP alliance look like in people’s minds? What are our strengths and weaknesses? What does the TPP care about most and need most? And what about the KMT? The point of an alliance is to win elections, not to stage a show that everyone can see through, that becomes a public joke, and turns our two camps into enemies sniping at each other. That’s exactly what we saw in 2024, right? If that’s the outcome, it’s better not to “ally” at all. How do we get to that level of openness and mutual understanding? It’s not just about Chairman Huang Kuo-chang, but also the political ecology in every county and city. And now that Ko Wen-je is back, what is his thinking? We must understand it and respect it. Like it or not, he can rally people with one call; he has real political clout. His attitude and ideas matter. These conversations are necessary—not once or twice, but as a standing practice. You can’t leave gaps for people to wedge themselves into; whenever there’s a misunderstanding, you should be able to clear it up with a phone call. Otherwise, just watch: the DPP will immediately start seeding stories and exploiting every crack.

Guanzhang

You see? Then you’ll have two suns in the sky—two centres of gravity. And your two parties aren’t even the same style to begin with.

Cheng Li-wen

Exactly. If the DPP starts driving wedges between Huang Kuo-chang and Ko Wen-je, and the KMT on the outside actually believes that nonsense, things will only get more complicated. At the end of the day, everything has to be for winning the election. Both sides need to agree in advance on the rules of the game that everyone can genuinely accept. That’s crucial. It can’t be one side just calculating what’s best for itself, saying, “This works best for me,” while the other side can’t accept it. In that case, there’s no way to cooperate. The rules must be public and genuinely accepted by both sides, and we need enough time to talk them through. Last time was far too rushed, far too hasty.

Guanzhang

You pick three pollsters, I pick three, and then we’ll stack the results and see what the percentage spread is.

Cheng Li-wen

That’s too childish. We shouldn’t do that.

Guanzhang

Should we just lock the doors next time? Settle it behind closed doors—fight it out privately, then come out afterwards?

Cheng Li-wen

Not literally fight it out. I hope it doesn’t come to that.

Guanzhang

Because as soon as the alliance is announced, the DPP will start manipulating things.

Cheng Li-wen

Right. We can’t give them room to interfere.

Guanzhang

I think we should minimise their chances to meddle as much as possible.

Cheng Li-wen

So it comes down to intent: if your intent is crooked from the start, if you’re out to take advantage of the other side, you won’t get a good outcome. We should be open and aboveboard and aim for a win–win. I keep saying this: it’s not about the KMT and the TPP carving up a fixed pie—“you take this slice, I take that slice.” I want the two parties to grow the pie—not just 50%, but 60%, even 65% or 70%. With a KMT–TPP alliance, we can win over more swing voters—and even those who once leaned toward the DPP. Many are disillusioned; if the alliance offers real hope instead of another unseemly spectacle—which to me is crucial—we can pull this off. And if we can grow the pie, everything changes. And it’s not only about nominations. On major positions and national policy, I want KMT and TPP to start close, regular coordination—because it’s not just about 2026; it’s also about 2028. So once the new party chair takes office on November 1, this has to kick off at full speed, with dense, fast-paced talks, so people quickly feel that both sides are acting in good faith and getting into position. And it shouldn’t just be me and Huang Kuo-chang talking one-on-one; I want a mechanism. The party should bring in trusted people, impartial figures, to join the discussion and help design a framework both sides can accept.

For example—and this is just an example—Tsai Cheng-yuan is a close friend of mine. He’s exceptionally sharp, understands the KMT deeply, and also understands the TPP. I would rely on him. Not just me alone, or Huang alone. If I can bring in one or two people like Tsai to help, we can pool our wisdom and set up a committee that truly knows the local political landscape. Otherwise, it ends up just the two of us cooking up some “rules” behind closed doors, and that would be wrong. I’d like these arrangements to take shape by year’s end to steady the morale. If we keep dragging our feet, people will start speculating—“are the talks falling apart? Is communication breaking down?”—and the rumour mill will go into overdrive.

So my hope is: once I take office, people will see steady progress, step by step, and feel that the KMT–TPP alliance is continuously moving forward. Ideally, we’ll have something clear to show by year’s end. Of course, that requires the TPP’s cooperation; I can’t guarantee it unilaterally. But if both sides bring real sincerity, keep the big picture in view, and accept that we can’t keep letting mainstream public opinion down—that we have to win in 2026 and again in 2028—then, with that kind of selfless mindset and scope, we won’t be replaying the farce we saw last time.

Guanzhang

Really?

Cheng Li-wen

Really. At least if I’m chair, I can promise you I’ll have that resolved.

Guanzhang

Okay, quick question while we’re here. If you become chair—there’s a question here—do you think this chairmanship race has any “black-box” elements or room for manipulation? And the bottom line is, are you actually qualified to run?

Cheng Li-wen

It’s been pretty heated these past few days around the KMT chair race. First, my eligibility and all my qualifications are perfectly in order. And as I’ve told everyone, the NT$13.2 million deposit is already fully arranged—we’re ready. In fact, when my husband checked with party HQ last week, they even asked us to bring cash. My husband said, “Come on, who still hauls cash around these days?” But anyway, the NT$13.2 million is ready. So, no issue with my eligibility to run. The only twist is that the election timeline was pushed back by two weeks. The handover to the new chair won’t happen until year’s end.

Guanzhang

Why can they just postpone it without a moment’s notice?

Cheng Li-wen

Exactly. That’s what shouldn’t happen. Once the election ground rules are publicly announced, everyone should follow them. Otherwise, when we sit down with the TPP and Huang Kuo-chang, it turns into a farce—one word and the published rules get rewritten again and again. Then the TPP will ask: Does what you told us still count? Will you announce something and change it again? At that point, the KMT will have nothing to say.

Guanzhang

That’s the KMT for you.

Cheng Li-wen

Which is exactly why this can’t be allowed. It’s about rules, rules, rules. Mayor Lu Shiow-yen has said it herself: no backroom dealing, and there’s no such thing as a chair “anointing” a successor. The same goes for the 2028 presidential nomination: you only have legitimacy if you keep things open and aboveboard, then you can unite the party, right? And that nomination in 2028 isn’t just an internal KMT matter; it’s a KMT–TPP matter. How could the chair privately dole it out and handpick someone?

And there’s an even bigger scandal lately. After the two-week postponement, Chairman Eric Li-luan Chu presented a certificate to Jaw Shaw-kong appointing him as chair of the party’s Central Review Committee. The next day, Jaw told the media he’d had dinner with Chairman Chu and Hau Lung-bin and that they had discussed the chair race. He said, first, they would back Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen—but she has publicly said she won’t run. If she won’t, then ask Chairman Chu to stay on—even though he has said many times he wants to pass the baton. And if Chu won’t stay on, then back Hau Lung-bin; and if Hau won’t run, Mr Jaw might jump in himself.

So here are my questions. First, whatever Mr Jaw, Mayor Hau, and Chairman Chu discussed—only the three of them know. What exactly was said? Second, Chairman Chu’s personal preference for who should be chair is his freedom as an individual. But as KMT chair, the party HQ must run this election fairly and transparently, and publish clear ground rules. No smoke-filled rooms, no pre-selection. Do a few people get to decide everything? If so, with the rules now announced and people lining up to register, are we just window dressing? Is this a sham election?

Guanzhang

You’re just set props—background leaves.

Cheng Li-wen

Right—are we just props? Has the chair already been decided? Of course, that’s unacceptable. Party HQ needs to run a clean, open election—no pre-selection. In a clean, open race, we present our platforms, track records, and character, and let party members decide. Every member, every vote, counts equally. Who gets to say a “big vote” counts more and mine counts less? If three or four people can decide who the chair is, are the rest of us just there to play extras? We absolutely can’t accept that.

So, to your question about what’s going on with the KMT chair race: I want us back on track—either hold the election or don’t. Forms are picked up next Monday, and registration wraps next week. Yet even before the first rules announcement, some people were deemed eligible and others not.

Guanzhang

So he’s still running—just a smokescreen?

Cheng Li-wen

I don’t know. Nobody really knows.

Guanzhang

Pump up the noise, then?

Cheng Li-wen

I really hope we keep things open and aboveboard. The rules matter most: respect them, keep your word, uphold integrity and transparency. No black boxes, no backroom deals, no private anointing. Isn’t that the most basic principle of a democracy? Party HQ must not set a bad example. If they call themselves the “big names,” the heavyweights—well, that kind of talk smacks of authoritarian palace intrigue. If you really are the heavyweights, then model the best democratic practice, not the opposite.

Guanzhang

I’m 46 now—squarely middle-aged—and dammit, it’s still the same old KMT faces I saw when I was a kid. What is this, a vampire clan? You know those movies— the eldest lives the longest and calls the shots. Shit, it’s like the KMT’s a vampire family: “How many years have you been here? I’ve been around for 300.” The ancient boss crawls out of the cave—fuck, it’s 2025, you know, bro? If we’re going to do politics—real democratic politics—then reform for real and reclaim your ancestral tablet: Chinese Kuomintang.

Cheng Li-wen

Exactly. We don’t change our name or our lineage.

Guanzhang

Right. And thank you for going over to that so-and-so—I won’t name him—and standing up for us Chinese, for the Republic of China’s Constitution. In my eyes, it was like smashing him over the head with a copy of the Constitution. Thank you. On behalf of the Chinese people, thank you.

I’ve got a question. It’s a sharp one, but I don’t think it will stump you, though lots of people dodge it. I’m someone who has followers on both sides of the Strait. I love Taiwan, and I love our compatriots in China. So I have to ask on their behalf—they’re blowing up my livestream chat about this.

Look, Hung Hsiu-chu speaks boldly—she’s that kind of iron lady. And you’re an iron lady too, right? Is “unification” always going to be a sore spot for the KMT? Is it something you can only talk about after you step down, like Hung did? She dared to go to the mainland because she left office; she has her own base, so she can say it. But you’re about to step up. After all, the KMT and mainland China have a bond that’s hard to untangle. Without the KMT, there’d be no “new China” today; otherwise, we’d still be in the Qing dynasty, right? So, how do you look at the term “unification”? Don’t be afraid; SET News or Formosa TV will splash it tomorrow anyway; they’ll say whatever they want.

Cheng Li-wen

No. I stopped caring a long time ago. First, I couldn’t care less about online troll armies. Second, I’ve never cared what labels people try to slap on me. If you care about that, you shouldn’t be in this line of work. In Taiwan, what can you do that the DPP won’t fling mud at? What won’t they label? The point is: any political party needs a core set of ideas, and it has to articulate them clearly, win public resonance, and even inspire people to follow and pursue a shared goal. So, first: Taiwan independence is a non-starter. I used to be in the DPP. I came out of the student movement.

Guanzhang

I know. A lot of people question your background, just like they do mine. I used to be pro-independence too.

Cheng Li-wen

Here’s what I came to realise: the DPP’s push for Taiwan independence doesn’t lead anywhere—it’s a sham. Back then, even though I was only in my twenties, I served as a National Assembly member and was deep in the DPP’s inner circle. I suddenly realised they were conning voters—and themselves. So I went to study at Cambridge to broaden my international outlook. What I found was that the “Taiwan independence” path is a dead end.

Our goal today isn’t “unification” or “independence.” My goal is simple: that ordinary people can live in peace, build a livelihood, chase their dreams, make money, fall in love, and live the life they want. It’s about people’s wellbeing, full stop.

Why do I say Taiwan independence is a dead end? Because if people are saying they will pursue it even at the cost of destroying Taiwan, what for? I’m here for the people, not for the slogan of independence. If “Taiwan independence” brings ruin on ourselves, it’s not worth it; it’s not necessary. Anyway, the United States doesn’t support it, and almost no one in the world will back it. So why charge down that path?

Now, about unification. Historically, when China was weak, Taiwan was ceded and spent 50 years under Japanese colonialisation. After WWII, there was a brief reunification, but even as a victor, China was in ruins, then plunged straight into civil war and split again.

It’s been 50 years under Japanese rule, then 80 years since the civil war. Wanting the two sides to reconcile isn’t something you do overnight, and it’s not solved by one word—“unification.” There are layers of complicated feelings, and yes, we even fought wars before. Where’s the mutual trust? The sense of kinship? The shared understanding? What’s the actual basis for engagement?

That’s why my approach is practical. I don’t buy into all the talk about “the roof”—how to design a “one China” roof, federal vs. confederal, and so on. A lot of people, especially academics, offer beautiful, perfect blueprints. “My model is best,” “No, mine is.”

Guanzhang

Like “one nationality,” that sort of thing…

Cheng Li-wen

What is all that? I don’t think that’s what matters most. I don’t care how pretty the roof looks. What matters is the foundation—is it solid? Are the beams and pillars sturdy? If the base is strong, then pick whatever roof you like. What I care about is whether the people living under it have good lives—are they safe, prosperous, and happy? That’s why I keep saying we need to build a foundation for century-long peace across the Strait. How do we build it? What’s the foundation? Without it, two leaders can “agree” today and be “unified” tomorrow, and four years later, if the DPP returns to power, tear it all up and say it “doesn’t count.” Under Ma Ying-jeou, we had eight years of strong cross-Strait exchanges; the moment he stepped down, it was all ripped up, and we slid back into Guanzhangility.

So when I say a century-long foundation, I’m talking about organic linkages in the economy, infrastructure, education, and public security—connections in every domain. Let ordinary people taste the benefits of reconciliation and cooperation: a better future and a better life.

And this is not about fear. Taiwanese shouldn’t maintain the status quo because we’re scared, because we’re small and the mainland is big, or because we can’t win a war. That’s not it. My hope, my aspiration, which I believe can work, is that with the capacities on both sides, we can build organic links and cooperation across many fields, and not just across the Strait but with international partners as the mainland grows more confident. We can stand on the shoulders of a giant and shine together in culture, the arts, sports, technology, and trade—so the world says: “Wow, this place everyone thought was on the brink of war, not only isn’t at war; it’s thriving. People are living better, and the energy and experience here are being shared with the world.”

As for the “end state,” I said it on your show last time: it should take its natural course. I want to see that 23 million people here are happy, and 1.4 billion there are happy too. I’m not here to dictate people’s fate as a politician and tell them to accept it whether they like it or not. I want to start now, from the KMT, to do the work.

And we’re not out to make enemies of the United States or to harm America. If cross-Strait ties are healthy, the whole world stands to benefit, right? If Taiwan and the mainland grow stronger together, we won’t bully Japan, harm South Korea, or threaten the U.S. Our intent is for the world to do well, and we want the world to understand that.

Don’t be afraid. Some others are terrified that if the two sides get along, it will upend their plans. The mainland is already strong, and Washington is nervous—sure. But we must keep declaring and proving our commitment to peace: even when both sides are strong, we won’t bully, invade, or exploit others. That commitment matters most.

Don’t be afraid. It’s others who are scared to death, worried that if the two sides get along. Because even with cross-Strait tensions now, the mainland is already strong and Washington is on edge, right? But what we have to do is keep stating and proving our commitment to peace. When both sides are strong, we will not bully others, we will not invade others, and we will not exploit others. That commitment matters most.

Guanzhang

Let me speak just for myself here, not for Li-wen. I hope that—if one day you become party chair—you’ll be willing to go across the Strait for exchanges, like Lo Chih-chiang has said he would.

Cheng Li-wen

Of course.

Guanzhang

And you have to take me along, okay?

Cheng Li-wen

Sure. No problem at all.

Guanzhang

Right, right. Because I’ve got things I want to do. I promised people in Taiwan, and I promised our compatriots on the mainland, that in this lifetime I’ll do my part to build a bridge across the Strait.

I’ll keep this brief. Sorry, but I think the Americans aren’t trustworthy. First, because the facts speak for themselves: look at Ukraine—millions dead; and then look at how Washington treats South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines, like subordinates. We work our tails off, yet they keep draining our wealth year after year, from arms sales to tariffs. How many rail lines could Taiwan have built with that money? How many highways through the Central Mountain Range? How many nuclear plants? How many ways could we have made life better for our people? But we can’t, because the U.S. exploits the cross-Strait stalemate to play electoral games. Put bluntly, it’s a shakedown, like a thug charging protection money.

Cheng Li-wen

They’re stripping away the fruits of our economy.

Guanzhang

What the two sides lack is mutual understanding. It’s been only about 90 days since I got into this—just over three months on this path, but I’ve been doing this seriously every day. The two sides are the same kind of people, the same kind, just like you and I are the same kind of people. We’re all part of the Chinese nation. And the mainland has achieved rejuvenation; once upon a time, Taiwanese were proud because we were wealthier, but now they’re stronger—just look at the Sept. 3 display. So I don’t think unification is “impossible.” The problem is we don’t know each other well enough. It’s like any relationship—if we’re going to date, to marry, we have to understand each other.

Cheng Li-wen

I completely agree. Yes.

Guanzhang

Of course, we shouldn’t just say, “Let’s get married. Let’s go register right now.” There’s a lot we have to go through in between. But the end goal should be stated up front: yes, we do hope to “get married.” We do think the two sides are one family and should cooperate. Why should we let the U.S. keep taking our money? To me, the gap is this: in Taiwan, too many people are still fed false information; on the mainland, too many still don’t understand us or just don’t care, focused only on their own development. I’m trying to nudge both sides toward integration and mutual tolerance. I’m not going into politics, but if you’re willing to go to the mainland, I really hope you can take me with you when the time comes. I may set up an association; it will be open to everyone, KMT or even DPP, anyone who wants to join.

Cheng Li-wen

I really admire you for that, because you’re true to your own heart; what you think is what you say. You’re not worrying, “If I go, will I lose followers? Will it split opinion in Taiwan?” None of that. That’s why you’re you—so genuine and all-in, not hedging, not calculating. That’s your character, and it’s special. It’s also why you have real appeal online.

Guanzhang

Thank you. Thank you.

Cheng Li-wen

And I think you’ve made some real contributions. A lot of people, especially young people, have watched your streams and your footage. There’s no filter, no editing, just a direct look at the real thing. What is the mainland actually like? What are mainlanders actually like? As it turns out, they’re not monsters. It’s not a den of scheming wolves and tigers over there.

Guanzhang

They love us.

Cheng Li-wen

It’s not hell, either. They’re kind like we are, soft-hearted like we are, and family-oriented like we are. Suddenly, we find we share a language; suddenly, people feel that making friends and doing business isn’t about demonising the other side at every turn. Taiwanese youth aren’t like the “Bluebird” radicals.

Guanzhang

Right. “Bluebird” is a minority in Taiwan now.

Cheng Li-wen

Exactly. Young Taiwanese are normal, warm, loving, and full of innovation—like I said—willing to give back to society and humanity, and brave enough to push forward.

Guanzhang

To wrap up, I really hope you can become a fresh, new party chair, Li-wen.

Cheng Li-wen

That’s what I’m hoping for too. And I will keep my word.

Guanzhang

Look, what I said earlier—good medicine tastes bitter, honest words can be hard to hear. And you’re not chair yet, so I’m not scolding you. If the KMT thinks I’m scolding them—well, then I am. I want a KMT that’s young, energetic, and shining. A KMT that values integrity and rules. A KMT that truly serves the people of Taiwan, and both sides of the Strait, and looking further, the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation worldwide. This is because you are called the Chinese Kuomintang of China. I want a genuinely new KMT.

Now, for the last five minutes—this is how our show runs—we hand it completely over to you. Please go ahead. The floor is yours.

Cheng Li-wen

Thank you. As you just said, if we go across the Strait for exchanges, we should bring you along. I’d go further: if the KMT and the TPP can truly work together, the two parties can go together, right? Do it openly and aboveboard, with broad minds, a bigger vision, and the greatest goodwill to build a bridge across the Strait. That will only open up a better future with more possibilities.

Back to the immediate task—the KMT chair election is about to begin. I want to use this chance to say: with my entry into the race, I hope the KMT can be reborn—a fresh spirit, real generational change, so we can win back the trust and participation of Taiwan’s young people. At the same time, we must have the courage to stand up for our own party members and staffers so we can restore cohesion inside the party.

More importantly, we carry the hopes of the people of Taiwan. We must achieve the KMT–TPP alliance. Not only that, but unite all forces in a broader opposition alliance. And as I said earlier, I’d like to invite you, too: if you’re willing, when we sit down to build the KMT–TPP alliance, please keep serving as the “super-glue.” Not just on cross-Strait exchanges.

Guanzhang

Absolutely.

Cheng Li-wen

I want to invite you to help create that positive influence so a KMT–TPP alliance can truly cooperate smoothly and win every election ahead. We will rout Lai Ching-te decisively. We must dismantle the DPP’s malign power. They’ve torn Taiwan apart, hollowed out its institutions, and worst of all, poisoned the hearts of our young people. They’ve even turned the judiciary into a political purge machine targeting dissenters. Taiwan must never again tolerate political persecutions like the one Ko Wen-je faced.

That goes for Ko, Huang Lu Chin-ju, the TPP, KMT. And remember how, online, even young people were hunted down by our judicial system? We must not forget those friends who were persecuted by the state machinery; we will stand by them to the end. I want everyone to have a sense of justice and fire in their belly, and to push the KMT to do better. The KMT has strengths and weaknesses, but we should bring together all its strengths. I can feel that even very senior party members want the KMT to be reborn and to rise again. This is their earnest hope, and the hope of all party members.

So I ask everyone to support my ideas and my resolve, to support the Kuomintang as we work for Taiwan’s democracy and for cross-Strait peace. Thank you. Thank you, Guanzhang.

Guanzhang

Alright. So in about two weeks we’ll know the result, right?

Cheng Li-wen

Voting is on October 18.

Guanzhang

October 18—we’ll know wins and loses then. We’ll be watching. Lastly, Li-wen will be making the rounds on all the big shows, and each program has its own style. I saw you on History Bro’s channel the other day; you could talk history for four hours—my god, impressive. Lately, everyone in the KMT seems eager to run. I still hope that in the end, whether the KMT or the TPP wins, we stick to the KMT-TPP alliance. In the end, we share a common opponent. If you don’t take it down, believe me, the KMT and the TPP are both finished. Don’t kid yourselves; none of you will be better off. Alright, let’s say goodbye to our viewers. Bye-bye!

Cheng Li-wen

Thank you, Guanzhang. Thank you, everyone.