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
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
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
RSS