President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) resumed the chairmanship of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) at its 18th National Congress on Saturday.
What is the difference between the old and new party-state systems? This is something that confuses everyone who is concerned about Taiwan’s democratic development. During the reigns of dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), a form of “democratic centralism” was used in which the leaders were the supreme authorities who dispensed authoritarian rule according to an organizational principle they called “a revolutionary democratic party.”
During former president Lee Teng-hui’s (李登輝) terms in office, he cited localized social forces to legitimatize the system and its leader, pushing for top-down democratic reform by using “power centralism.” Ma’s new system, one that is still taking shape, is an interest group of the rich and powerful, characterized by “black gold” and those who lean toward communists. The KMT has taken advantage of the hatred the public has shown toward former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) incompetence and corruption to stage a comeback. This comeback has had much to do with luck.
The Chiangs resisted communism to safeguard Taiwan. Later, Lee promoted democracy to achieve the same goal. They made anti-communism and democracy our national values. However, Ma’s system has inherited former KMT chairman Lien Chan’s (連戰) enthusiasm for cooperating with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to suppress independence, with the vision of peaceful development between the two sides. This new system is not anti-communist nor does it propose the self-determination of Taiwan. This is very worrying because it will probably be looked back on as “currying favor with China while selling out Taiwan.”
Human rights and state sovereignty would be missing from a cross-strait peace founded under such conditions. Apart from allowing KMT and CCP heavyweights to travel across the Taiwan Strait freely, what benefits would this really bring to Taiwanese workers?
For a time, Chen served concurrently as the president and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman. Internally, he attempted to synchronize party and government, turning the DPP’s Central Standing Committee into a dialogue platform for those responsible for party, administrative and legislative affairs. Externally, he wished to exercise flexible party diplomacy as party chairman.
The results fell short of expectations because the administrative branch did not accept the opinions of the party or legislative branch, not to mention that there was little mutual trust between the ruling and opposition camps and between Taiwan and China. As a result, their interaction was completely obstructed. The DPP’s failure here serves as a lesson.
The KMT should stop making administrative authority its central focus and should conduct a thorough review of Taiwan’s national interests to improve mutual trust between the ruling and opposition camps. This would also help the party gain confidence from the public. Otherwise, the new system is unlikely to build greater political prestige for Ma, and his policies will be directly challenged by party factions, while he and the KMT’s party resources sink into the mire of factions and even “black gold.”
The KMT-CCP platform will also turn Ma into the CCP’s representative in Taiwan and he could very well fall from grace just as he reaches the pinnacle of power.
Tseng Chien-yuan is an associate professor in the Department of Public Administration at Chung Hua University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US