Alexa
  • Directory of Taiwan

Taiwan premier responds to being called 'lightbulb without electricity'

KMT still reeling from Su Tseng-chang’s ‘Chiang Kai-shek failed to reclaim China’ jab

  1628
Premier Su Tseng-chang (middle) tells KMT Chair Eric Chu to focus on investigating reports of bribery in the party. 

Premier Su Tseng-chang (middle) tells KMT Chair Eric Chu to focus on investigating reports of bribery in the party.  (CNA photo)

TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — In response to Kuomintang (KMT) Chair Eric Chu (朱立倫) calling him “a lightbulb without electricity,” Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) said Chu should prioritize investigating bribery within his party.

Su has often been called a “lightbulb” due to his bald, and often shiny, head. Chu’s “no electricity” criticism both referred to the frequent blackouts across Taiwan in recent years and implied that Su needs to be taught a lesson.

When asked about the comment on Tuesday morning (March 15), Su urged Chu to investigate reports of bribery within the KMT, return the party's ill-gotten assets to the country, and stop trying to join in on the hype over his recent row with Legislator Wayne Chiang (蔣萬安), CNA reported.

On Friday (March 11), Su had told Chiang, the great-grandson of former dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), that “The KMT has promised since your grandfather’s reign to recapture China. It still hasn’t recaptured China. That was a most irresponsible government.” Su said this in response to Chiang’s taunt that Su “dared” not guarantee there would be no more blackouts.

Since the exchange, KMT members have admonished Su for his “bad attitude” and “counter-interpellation,” threatening to boycott future interpellation sessions. Su said that whether everyone “treats each other with respect” or not, he would return the favor with fervor.

Su said that while he is required by the constitution to attend interpellation sessions, no rule forbids "counter-interpellation" — he simply cannot respond to legislators with anything outside the scope of the interpellation. He argued he had responded to Chiang’s questions about electricity with answers related to electricity and Chiang’s question about promises with an example of Chiang Kai-shek’s inability to keep them.