The KMT's history poses two complicated questions. First, how did the party lose power in China? Second, how did the party lose power in Taiwan?
In answer to the first, the KMT blames both the US government's mediation which led to a halt of the civil war between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party, as well as the cancellation of US financial aid to the KMT government. The international mainstream view, however, is that the KMT itself is responsible since the situation was beyond salvation as the party had lost public support. Thus, continued financial aid from the US would hardly have changed the result of the war.
We will never be able to crack the first question since it is impossible for us to go back in time to examine what would have happened if the US financial aid had continued. As for the second question, however, -- How did the party lose its power in Taiwan? -- I believe the answer will be out very soon.
Since the KMT lost power in Taiwan, the "anti-Lee faction" (反李勢力) has pointed the finger at former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), blaming him for the party's split, which made room for the DPP's growth. They claimed that the so-called "peaceful transition of political power," from the KMT to the DPP, was in fact the result of a sophisticated plan by Lee himself.
On the other hand, the party's "pro-Lee faction" (擁李勢力) seems to believe that without Lee's insistence on "localization" (本土化), adopted from the DPP, which helped the party to get closer to the Taiwanese voters, the KMT might have lost power long ago. Thus, Lee did not murder the KMT but helped the party to linger on.
This second question also seemed destined to remain unsolved and debated by politicians and studied by historians forever. To save the KMT's time and energy, however, KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) has recently revealed the answer to it as his party now actively eradicates the so-called "Lee Teng-hui line" (李登輝路線) and tries to revert to the "pre-Lee" position (前李狀態) from the "post-Lee" position (後李狀態). Thus, the "Lee Teng-hui line" has now been defined as an unexpected mistake in the KMT's development. After Lien's "new KMT" (or perhaps the real "old KMT") has emerged from Lee's shadow, whether the party regains power or not, the party has given its answer to the second question by its recent actions.
Even people with the wildest imaginations would never have imagined that what was the KMT's mainstream before the presidential election would now have become the party's non-mainstream. Jason Hu (胡志強), the KMT spokesperson, officially announced not long ago, for example, that Lee's words do not represent the KMT. Also, former Control Yuan President Chen Li-an (陳履安), who left the KMT in 1996 to run as an independent presidential candidate, announced his re-registration as a KMT member, while the party has tried to persuade former premier Hau Pei-tsun (郝柏村) and former Judicial Yuan president Lin Yang-kang (林洋港) to return to the KMT. Even Lee's special "state-to-state" model (兩國論) has now been replaced by Lien's suggestion of a "confederate system" (邦聯制).
Historians should appreciate Lien for answering the historic question by his recent actions. Due to the difficulties of second-guessing history, however, a hundred historians might have a hundred different explanations for the same historical event. Consequently, while Lien answers the question of whether Lee has murdered the KMT with his recent actions, historians may continue to argue about his answer.
Chuang Pei-chang is a senior journalist. Translated by Eddy Chang
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs