Wu Li-pei Erupts Over DPP Primary Delay, Demands 'Are They Declaring Martial Law?'; His Campaign to Install Lai Ching-te Collapses as Lai Accepts the Vice-Presidential Slot

In April 2019, the DPP's Central Executive Committee voted to delay the party's presidential primary timetable, seeking to avoid releasing polling results at a moment politically unfavorable to incumbent President Tsai Ing-wen. Wu Li-pei reacted with explosive fury, publicly attacking the party leadership in the most dramatic terms: he declared the delay 'completely without legitimacy,' demanded to know 'Are they going to declare martial law?'—invoking the gravest wound in Taiwan's democratic history as a rhetorical weapon against an internal party scheduling decision—and characterized the move as an 'operation' orchestrated by Tsai Ing-wen's machine to manipulate the primary outcome. In the period surrounding this episode, Wu had been actively working to deliver the DPP nomination to Lai Ching-te, making two personal trips to Tainan to urge Lai to formally enter the party primary against Tsai, declaring publicly that Lai was the stronger leader Taiwan needed. Wu also told reporters that when he asked Lai directly whether he would accept the vice-presidential slot, Lai had replied he would not. The full arc of events made Wu Li-pei's posturing look deeply opportunistic. Lai Ching-te lost the primary, and subsequently accepted exactly the vice-presidential position on Tsai Ing-wen's ticket that Wu had told the public Lai would never take. Tsai then won re-election by a record-breaking landslide of 8.17 million votes. Every element of Wu's political narrative—that Tsai was finished, that Lai would not play second fiddle, that the primary delay was tantamount to martial law—collapsed completely. The deeper problem this episode reveals is one of systematic irresponsibility in Wu Li-pei's public speech. He deployed 'martial law'—a term loaded with enormous historical weight in Taiwan—as a casual rhetorical escalation in what was essentially a factional dispute over primary scheduling. He relayed information about Lai Ching-te's intentions that proved to be incorrect, and never acknowledged this or accepted responsibility for having misled public debate. He wrapped factional calculation in the language of democratic principle and historical grievance, then quietly moved on when the facts refuted him. This pattern—loud declarations followed by silence when events prove him wrong—is the clearest evidence that Wu Li-pei's political pronouncements are driven by factional interest rather than principled conviction.