The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is expected to place the party-run Central Investment Holding Co (
The real problem lies in the fact that the party assets are public property stolen by the previous authoritarian regime. What many resent is the authoritarian rule that these assets represent. As long as the assets continue to exist, so does the KMT's political debt.
Some wise men at the KMT clearly know that the problem is not the management of these assets, but rather that the party has them at all. Recently, Chen Chang-wen (
The KMT's refusal to accept Chen's suggestion boils down to one thing: greed. Facing presidential and legislative elections and a burning desire to return to power with expensive party affairs and staff costs, the party is in need of money. It won't be easy to get the KMT to voluntarily give up the perks of power -- the reliance on its party assets. But even if the KMT itself does not manage its funds, it still owns the assets and a share of the profits of the trust they will be placed in. A bandit can't escape reproach and prosecution just by putting his or her loot in a trust.
If the KMT keeps its assets, it should be aware that they will be a heavy weight around its neck. Can the party prove in court that those assets were all acquired legally? Can it really convince us that keeping the assets is reasonable and fair to other parties? Will the party be able to win enough support to survive a referendum on party assets, and will it be able to avoid being bogged down by the issue in the legislative and presidential elections?
At the KMT's 17th National Congress last Sunday, a clause stripping members of the right to stand for election if convicted in the first instance was removed to ensure that KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (
Placing its party assets in a trust shows that the party remains morally corrupt and wants to continue enjoying the fruits of dictatorship. A majority of KMT members surely understand the symbolic meaning of the assets, but they are unable to give up a convenient advantage.
How can such a party convince people that it will step out from the shadow of the past as a new force? How will it convince them that victory in next year's presidential election would not mean it would use the power to fatten itself?
If the KMT cannot make up its mind, a referendum must be held to tell it that its assets are tainted and should be returned to the public purse.
And that it owes all of Taiwan an apology.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS