Editorial: Party assets game set to continue

The problem of the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) stolen assets has once again made the KMT the target of severe attacks from both the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the executive. However, the KMT has asked for it. The lack of progress and transparency in the handling of the disposition of the assets against the backdrop of the KMT's open commitment to return them, as well as popular expectations, naturally invites resentment.

Last week, Vice Minister of Finance Lee Ruey-tsang (李瑞倉) indicated that in terms of real estate assets, the KMT has so far only returned 1.29 percent, if the calculations are based on actual size of these assets, and 5.67 percent, if based on their value. These figures show that the KMT has failed to live up to its promise of returning the assets to the public and the country.

These accusations were, unsurprisingly, immediately refuted by KMT Deputy Secretary-General Chang Che-shen (張哲琛), who said that all party assets were obtained lawfully and who criticized Lee for his method of calculation -- which traced real estate properties obtained by the KMT during the period after 1949, when the KMT government fled to Taiwan.

The difficulty with the campaign to compel the KMT to return its stolen assets starts with no one even knowing for sure just how many of these assets there actually are. Therefore, it is hard to monitor whether the party has indeed returned them. However, having said that, it is also clear that the KMT hasn't even come close to returning any significant portion of its assets. For example, Lee's calculations covered only real estate. Obviously that is because real estate is tangible and immovable, so it isn't hard to trace ownership. As for its other assets, unless the KMT has enough moral conscience to voluntarily provide an exhaustive list, it will prove impossible to obtain one.

Then is the issue of how to identify stolen assets that need to be returned. On the one hand, there are those like Chang who claim that the assets were lawfully obtained. The assumption is of course that the KMT is good enough to even want to return its assets. As for how much, it is entirely up to the KMT. This kind of argument is of course a cruel joke. During the early decades of the KMT regime, there was no rule of law. The rubber stamp legislature would write or pass whichever law the rulers told it to. So, technically speaking, Chang could be right -- there was no violation of law when the KMT obtained the assets, in the absence of real laws.

However, the manner in which these assets were obtained was entirely at odds with fundamental democratic principles. Democracy in Taiwan has evolved to the point where people find the method used in obtaining these assets to be abhorrent. This is something that the KMT cannot ignore. It is indeed short-sighted of those in power within the party to cling onto these assets and allow this topic to haunt the party over and over again.

Taipei Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) election to the KMT chairmanship presented an invaluable opportunity for the party to change its image by making a clean break with the past. A lot of people had high expectations that Ma would do better than his predecessors. However, Ma, so far, has not lived up to these expectations and the cat and mouse game over the KMT's assets continues.