The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) achieved a whole new level of chutzpah this week in going on the defensive over its economic stimulus plans (or lack thereof) and its stolen party assets. The sheer brazenness of the comments from administration and party lawmakers almost defied belief, except that under President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, we have come to expect that the emperor has no clothes.
First up was Executive Yuan Deputy Secretary-General Steven Chen (陳士魁), who said on Wednesday that the government was hard at work trying to boost the economy, but was not concerned about whether the public could see any improvement, calling the determination of progress “a subjective matter.”
Chen went on to say that he had publicized only a few of the more than 100 plans put forward by Cabinet ministries as part of the government’s massive “Economic Power-up Plan” so as to not overburden the media, but that he could assure the public that the majority of the plans were nearly accomplished. So, he did not want to create more work for reporters by actually telling them what the government was up to, which would create the need for them to write stories about what was being done. What a pile of horse manure.
This supercilious comment echoed the ill-fated 40-second TV ad that was pulled from YouTube this week, the one with the narrative that the Economic Power-up Plan was too complex to explain in simple words, but the important thing was that a lot of things were being done. The public would just have to trust the government, was the implication. No wonder so many people were quick to label both the ad and the government’s YouTube account as frauds.
A willingness to trust in the unknowable and unseeable is what Chen and his masters are counting on — a mindset that hearkens back to the KMT’s authoritarian era, when the public was more malleable (or more scared).
The only example of the “more than 100 plans” that Chen was willing to mention was a proposal to take effect early next year that would mean people no longer having to routinely renew their vehicle licenses. He said the policy would benefit 15 million motorcyclists and 6 million drivers, adding: “If people still cannot feel an improvement after that, then I am speechless.”
It is hard to see how reducing paperwork for motorists is going to get an export-oriented economy back on its feet, but Chen’s implication was that it is not the government’s problem if the public is too slow or too dim-witted to understand what is being done on its behalf. Chen’s comment left many speechless, but from laughter, not disbelief.
Just as the KMT and its officials cannot understand why the public is unwilling to see what is not there, like the emperor’s clothes, they do not understand why critics continue to harp on about the party’s stolen assets.
On Thursday, it was KMT Legislator Wu Yu-sheng’s (吳育昇) turn to defend the indefensible. In a meeting of the legislature’s Internal Administration Committee to review a proposed bill on political parties, Wu complained of persecution by opposition lawmakers who wanted to include something about the KMT’s stolen assets in the bill. He said only the courts could decide “whether KMT assets are legal or illegal, it’s not a decision that should be made by the legislature.”
It does not take a court to decide what was stolen. It has always been very clear. Any assets obtained from property, companies and facilities held by the Japanese colonial government at the end of World War II should rightfully have ended up with the national treasury, not the KMT. Any profits derived from such stolen assets are also tainted fruit and should be handed over to the treasury. This is not persecution, it is fact, and only the KMT remains too blinkered to see it.
A brazen defense of the indefensible is becoming the trademark of the Ma administration. If all the energy spent on whitewashing was put toward something that was actually productive, the economy would be bouncing back already, as would Ma’s poll numbers.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic