When the leaders of the "broad KMT opposition alliance" warn that the new DPP-led government "is taking the country down an uncertain path" with "unimaginable consequences," we must be curious as to where they would like to take us instead.
After the Nov. 11 summit with KMT Chairman Lien Chan (
A clear signal of this "new" direction was flashed by their adherence to the "state religion" of the KMT, namely Sun Yat-sen (
But perhaps now the tide is turning. "We are all disciples of Sun Yat-sen," intoned Lien. "The spirit of Sun Yat-sen is not dead," seconded Soong.
After worshipping the Republic of China's exalted founder at the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall last Sunday, Lien affirmed at an "uphold the constitution" rally at his party's headquarters that the KMT's great contributions to Taiwan's "political construction" were "based on Sun Yat-sen's thought and spirit."
Whether the KMT has honored Sun's legacy more in its practice than in the breach thereof may be debated, but simple allusions to the "old time religion" provide little guidance of how Sun's thought can serve Taiwan today as it attempts to practice democratic politics while facing economic and financial globalization, conditions which Sun never had to confront. Sun could have little appreciated the irony of Lien's appeal to the "five-branch constitution," a dead letter in the Chiang era during which only the executive had more than nominal power.
The call by the "broad KMT front" to restore to the legislature the power to approve the president's choice of premier is even more ironic.
It was the KMT itself, with former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) as chairman, that during 1996-97 pushed through the amendment that took away this power. Moreover, Lee promoted this change largely to ensure that opposition parties, then the DPP, New Party and "non-mainstream" rivals in the KMT itself, could not block his own choice for the premiership, reputedly Lien Chan himself.
Where was Lien then, when Lee's "reforms" were being prepared and passed by the National Assembly? He was holding both the vice presidency and the premiership, in defiance of his own campaign promises and the spirit of the constitution, a state of affairs that persisted from May 1996 through August 1997.
Beside the KMT chairman's demand that the new government "respect the legislature" stands Lien's own "thumbs down" gesture in mid-1996 after DPP lawmakers blocked Lien from entering the Legislative Yuan to protest his moonlighting as premier. Lien, who now chides Chen for "trampling on the constitution," stayed in office over eight months after the Grand Council of Justices, which has the power to interpret the constitution, had ruled in December 1996 that his concurrent occupation of the two posts was "improper," a clear signal that Lien should resign the premiership.
In case anyone has forgotten, Lien only left the premiership in August 1997 after massive demonstrations in Taipei that sprang from his apparent indifference to worsening public safety, rising crime rates, spreading political corruption and his dual role.
The intent of the "broad KMT front" to advance to the rear is even more evident in the field of cross-strait relations. The "broad KMT" alliance has demanded that the new government "return"to the supposed "consensus of September 1992" summarized in the phrase "`one China,' with each side free to make its own interpretation." The "broad KMT" won't be bothered over whether there ever was such a consensus or whether that "consensus" has public support when the Taiwan government at that time could not be considered to have been democratic or representative -- given that the first full legislative elections in Taiwan did not take place until December 1992.
The "broad KMT" demand that Chen convene the National Unification Council similarly flies in the face of democratic principles. Not only is the NUC, which Lee set up in 1990, a relic of the pre-democratic era, but, in a crystal-clear example of "ruling by ideology," its goal is to accelerate unification.
Whether that assumption had the support of the majority of the Taiwan people in 1990 is unknown: they were not asked since national security legislation still obstructed open debate over the direction of the island's future and its relations with the People's Republic of China (PRC).
But there is no justification to impose this prejudicial position on the people of Taiwan now, especially since poll after poll shows that the vast majority prefers to retain the status quo and has scant interest in "accelerating" unification with the PRC. But the KMT's underlying position is revealed in the policy brief submitted to Chen by Lien after their televised dialogue of Oct. 27: "We maintain that `one China' is the Republic of China and that the mainland and Taiwan are both parts of this `one China.'" In place of Lee's legally-grounded notion of "state to state relations" between the ROC and PRC or Chen's emphasis on the right of the Taiwanese people to be the final arbiters of their fate, the KMT would offer its own most revered myth as the foundation principle to define Taiwan's identity and guide cross-strait policy. Upon this myth the KMT justified over a half-century of authoritarian rule and defied the hard reality that the rest of the world ignores this myth and sees the PRC as the "one China" -- the crux of Taiwan's present diplomatic isolation.
Do we really need to give the KMT another chance? The question facing the people of Taiwan is not "how many more five months can we stand?" as posed by a KMT advertisement this week, but "how many more 55 years can Taiwan afford to waste?"
Dennis Engbarth is a freelance writer based in Taipei.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.