Calls for party reforms emerge every time the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) loses an election or elects a new chairperson.
They were heard after the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, after President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) became KMT chair and after the widespread losses in the nine-in-one elections on Nov. 29, 2014, when New Taipei City Mayor Eric Chu (朱立倫) succeeded Ma as chairman and promised to carry out a range of reforms, including making the party less ideologically motivated, bringing transparency to its finances and returning its “stolen” assets to the nation.
However, the results have always been disappointing, to say the least, especially from Chu. Not only did he not supply accurate information on how many KMT assets remain — demonstrating a lack of credibility and capability — the whole drama surrounding the replacement of the KMT presidential candidate suggests Chu’s complicity in the opaqueness.
Three days after the KMT crashed and burned in the Jan. 16 presidential and legislative elections, a group of young members announced the formation of the Grassroots Alliance and called for intra-party democracy, debates over the party’s cross-strait policies and its identity narrative, dropping “China” from its name and other reforms.
Another group of party representatives and KMT Central Committee members yesterday established what they called the “Structure Defenders.” Among this group’s proposals are debates on policy direction, ensuring the transparency of party assets and establishing a bottom-up policymaking mechanism.
These efforts ought to be applauded. While young does not necessarily mean progress, just as old does not always mean outdated, that the younger group has “dared” to touch what their party elders deem to be taboo subjects and make suggestions for these areas indicates that not everyone in the KMT is tone-deaf to social currents.
By proposing dropping the word “Chinese” from the KMT’s name and asking party authorities “why can’t the KMT let go of its assets?” the Grassroots Alliance and the “Structure Defenders” showed that there are members willing to meet the public’s demands.
However, for the KMT to regain public support, for it to reshape itself, it must first face its problems honestly and forthrightly.
One of the most frequent criticisms of the KMT is its authoritarian legacy, which is reflected in the undemocratic and opaque methods by which it conducts itself and the domination of internal decisionmaking by those with seniority and rank; there has been little to no room for open debates of the issues plaguing the party.
A poll by National Chengchi University’s Election Study Center in July last year found a record-low 9.1 percent of respondents supported unification with China, and a record-low 3.3 percent regarded themselves as Chinese. The survey found the percentage of respondents viewing themselves as Taiwanese was almost 60 percent, while 33.7 percent said they were “both Taiwanese and Chinese,” and only 3.3 percent identified themselves as “solely Chinese.”
If the KMT were to drop “Chinese” from its name, it would demonstrate a genuine willingness to identify with this land and its people, bring the party closer to the public and help it rid itself of its label as a “foreign regime.”
However, only by once and for all coming clean on the party assets issue and returning its ill-gotten assets to the nation can the KMT regain the public’s trust — and its strength. This is the only way it could ever rise from the ashes.
Many people hope the ideals and appeals made by the Grassroots Alliance, the “Structure Defenders” and other reformers will actually achieve results and start the internal democratization of the KMT, and not prove to be another flash in the pan that ends with a fizzle.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and