The two Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) vice chairmen who are regarded as the most likely successors of KMT Chairman Lien Chan (
People should realize that the committee members are "old thieves" (
It is therefore not surprising that 22 members of the Central Standing Committee petitioned Lien to remain as chairman for another term. Their first consideration is not the party's best interests, but rather their own. And Lien is also reluctant to step down. So, from a comfortable position of power, they are able to put down Ma -- the upstart who wants to win the chairmanship for himself.
This situation is typical of a Leninist party such as the KMT. Lien has yet to state his intentions, and is clearly assessing public opinion. The chairman, who holds a PhD in political science from the prestigious University of Chicago, has failed to carry the torch of democracy in Taiwan, but instead has become a bastion of reaction, desperately upholding the authoritarian legacy of Chiang Kai-shek (
This is an ideal time to conduct a comparative study of the DPP and the KMT. Neither party has changed much over the years. The KMT's authoritarian tradition is unshaken, and the DPP, while opinionated and feisty, suffers from a fondness for political infighting. Most recently, in the run up to the May 14 National Assembly elections, many DPP members lambasted Chen's moderate policy in his recent dealings with China.
Criticism of Chen has abated since the DPP won the elections. But despite the drubbing he got at the hands of party members, he has little choice but to show them goodwill.
The two parties' political culture is a reflection of the divergent cultures of Taiwan and China. The KMT, which came out of China, maintains a culture of intrigue and secrecy, while the DPP has a spirit fortified by the grassroots vigor of Taiwan's emergent democracy. It will hardly matter whether Ma or Wang takes over, if the KMT does not undergo thorough reform. If they are unable to overcome the party's authoritarian culture, the KMT will continue in its rut.
But the most urgent question now is: Will Lien retire or not? The party's rank and file can't take much more. After Lin Chin-chuan (
Whether Lien will contest the election or not is an internal matter for the KMT. What we are concerned about more is: How can a political party without a democratic culture effectively engage with China -- and how can it represent the people of Taiwan?
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS