Taiwan’s democratic development and its self-determination are challenged not only by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), but also by the policies of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Unfortunately, there seems to be a strong focus on Ma’s low popularity and his competence as a president, rather than on the KMT as a party.
The KMT deserves more attention. Just because the KMT has been on the wrong side of democracy in the past and has enforced a Chinese mentality on the Taiwanese while dreaming of unification, it does not mean that the party is now handling these issues better. Indeed, it now seems to be finding new ways to achieve old agendas.
A reality check is advisable in this respect. Despite the fact that the KMT has a vast parliamentary majority, Taiwan’s democratic development has been held back over the past five years. Taiwan’s press freedom has deteriorated, as documented by the US-based Freedom House, and questionable legal cases have been filed against former government officials. Moreover, Ma’s involvement in attempts to unseat Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) constitutes a fundamental breach of the basic principles of the separation of power and checks and balances in a democracy.
The country even went as far as unjustly refusing entry to a German citizen in March — a decision which appears to have been politically motivated. His ban has been lifted. Given the background of this case and the fact that more Europeans are being banned from Taiwan, it is worrying that the KMT is reluctant to implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that Ma has signed and which protects foreigners’ political activities in Taiwan.
Moreover, during the past five years, the KMT parliamentary majority has led to a lowering of Taiwan’s international status. This has threatened Taiwan’s self-determination.
The Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement agreement has still not been submitted to the WTO and the nation’s symbolic participation in the WHO is dependent on China’s annual approval. Both of these factors have lowered Taiwan’s international status.
Additionally, the KMT has not reacted when Ma has said that China is not a foreign country and that cross-strait relations are not international relations. Chinese culture is undeniable a part of Taiwan, but the KMT government overemphasizes it. By doing this, Europe’s Taipei Representative Offices miss the opportunity to brand Taiwan’s culture as unique and to portray Taiwan as a modern society.
This is not only hurting Taiwan’s self-determination by diminishing Taiwan uniqueness; it may also harm Taiwanese industries.
Also, in Taiwan Chinese culture is increasingly promoted in the educational system, which may serve the old goal of unification.
The most dangerous people for the KMT are those who point out how the party’s policies damage Taiwan’s democratic development and challenge its myth of unification. These people are directly undermining the party’s belief in what the right path for the nation is. It is encouraging to observe that the number of Taiwanese concerned about the nation’s current development is growing.
It continues to be a mystery why unification and Chinese national identity are so highly valued among KMT politicians, when it should be obvious that related policies hurt Taiwan’s future and international status — and go against the general public trend which sees the population increasingly disassociating themselves from China.
Why is the KMT walking along these similar avenues, and where is the KMT taking Taiwan? Ma is obviously not the only problem.
Michael Danielsen is chairman of Taiwan Corner, an online Danish publication.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS