The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) ruled the Republic of China (ROC) in China for about 22 years, from 1927, after the Northern Expedition provided some national unity to a China divided by warlords and revolution to the time it moved to Taiwan, after being thrown out of China by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 1949 at the end of the Chinese Civil War.
When it came to implementing a Leninist party-state system, the CCP learned from the expert KMT.
Even today, both parties hold to the “one China” principle. The CCP sees the elimination of the ROC as unfinished business, and the KMT — and President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) — claims that the territory of the ROC also includes China.
In a speech at the Double Ten National Day celebrations, Ma said that cross-strait relations are not “international relations” according to the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例), and the ROC’s territory includes the Chinese mainland, according to the Constitution.
The two parties are actually “predators” of political power hiding behind the cover of Chinese nationalism.
Modern China has been through tumultuous times, from abuse at the hands of foreign colonial powers and two revolutions — the Republican revolution of 1912 and the communist revolution of 1949 — but neither regime has any respect for human life.
Democracy? Freedom? They are rhetorical names for power, and nothing else.
The political turmoil that began last month exposed the ugliness of the KMT under Ma’s rule. The KMT is desperate and is resorting to its old tricks, which means people should be wary of it. The party knows nothing about power transfers, it only knows how to run away.
Eventually, the full democratization of Taiwan will mean the end of the KMT’s party-state regime, so a few KMT leaders are planning for their future once the party loses power.
In 2002, Ma criticized former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) proposal of “one country on each side” of the Taiwan Strait, calling it a rash move. However, that criticism exposed his ignorance of public opinion.
Ma also criticized former president Lee Teng-hui’s (李登輝) 1999 proposal of the “special state-to-state” model of cross-strait relations as a measure of expediency. Does Ma want to give Taiwan to China and surrender himself to the party-state regime on the other side?
After experiencing five direct presidential elections under the rule of Lee, Chen and Ma, the democratic system has given the antidemocratic Ma an opportunity to commandeer the fruits the nation’s development. Although he claims that he greatly respects former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), it seems that he wants to terminate the ROC that he inherited from them. Is this the historical legacy that he is seeking?
After relocating to Taiwan 64 years ago, the ROC has failed to complete its localization with complete democratization.
Perhaps the KMT is trying to come full circle and return to China. It seeks to unite with the CCP, which also has the word “Chinese” in the party’s name.
Although the CCP ended the KMT’s rule in China, the latter’s obsession with its former home has set it on a course back to China. Since Ma has no intention of pushing for localization, expecting a pro-Taiwan KMT is wishful thinking.
After being used by Ma, those party members he is using as his puppets will eventually be abandoned.
Lee Min-yung is a poet.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
RSS