The Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) finances have been the subject of controversy and debate for more than two decades. A lawsuit filed on Wednesday by an unlikely plaintiff — a longtime party member — may finally succeed in providing a long overdue assessment of the party’s account books.
The debate over the KMT’s finances is hardly surprising, given that it arrived in Taiwan as a refugee — albeit a conquering one — and by the mid-1990s was judged to be one of the richest political parties in the world. The KMT prospered as dramatically as the nation during the hardscrabble one-party-state years that created Taiwan’s economic miracle.
Many of the KMT members who rotated between government and party posts or served concurrently were praised for their economic and financial acumen, with The Economist noting in a 1998 article that at one point in the late 1970s, the central bank governor was also the KMT’s top finance manager. The party consistently trumpeted its economic prowess on the campaign trail, including during President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) first presidential bid and his re-election effort in 2012.
However, the party’s vast treasure chest and its campaign largesse have also created new problems. While the term “black gold” is commonly used to describe oil, by the 1990s in Taiwan it was shorthand for the KMT and political corruption.
Even as KMT lawmakers were able to thwart legislative efforts to force the party to account for and divest itself of “stolen” assets or to enact an effective sunshine law — including through the eight years of opposition rule — the nation’s economy began to stall and the party began to hemorrhage money. The KMT’s economic astuteness appeared to be failing.
By November 2004, the KMT made headlines with its inability to pay its full-time employees on time, while the Bank of Taiwan was pressing it to pay more than NT$300 million (US$9.4 million at current exchange rates) outstanding for months of preferential interest rates the bank had paid to retired KMT workers.
When Ma first ran for the KMT chairmanship in 2005, he promised to clean up the party and resolve the stolen asset controversy. He made the same promise when he ran again in 2009. Yet the party’s actions under his watch only created more controversy.
On Dec. 31 last year, KMT Deputy Secretary-
General Lin Te-jui (林德瑞) told the party’s Central Standing Committee that the KMT had about NT$1 billion in land and buildings and NT$23.23 billion worth of enterprises, but its assets had plunged from NT$62.8 billion in 2000 to NT$23.3 billion in 2006 as a result of investment losses. He also said that businesses the party used to run had all been placed in trust and it had not run for-profit corporations since 2007. Vice President and acting KMT chairman Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) told the committee that none of the property the KMT holds had been obtained improperly.
Lin’s and Wu’s statements seemed to be the latest salvo in the party’s cover-your-hide efforts in the wake of the comment by New Taipei City Mayor Eric Chu (朱立倫) — the sole contender to be the next KMT boss — that the party “must return any ill-gotten assets to the nation.”
Attorney George Wang (王可富) this week demanded an accounting of the KMT’s financial failings from 13 top party officials and members — including Ma — whom he accused of breach of trust and embezzling NT$200 billion in party assets. He wants the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office to find out how the party managed to lose NT$39.5 billion between 2000 and 2006.
The party has never been willing to provide a detailed history and accounting of all its assets and transactions or documentation of its account management. Wang’s lawsuit, if it makes it to trial, may finally provide the leverage to force the KMT to open its books. Suffice it to say, there are many in this nation who hope he succeeds.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s