Not surprisingly, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and other vested interest holders are opposed to proposed measures for achieving transitional justice. However, these reactions show reformers are on the right track and should move ahead with their plans.
New Power Party Legislator Freddy Lim (林昶佐) on Wednesday called on the Overseas Community Affairs Commission to redefine the term “overseas community” as Taiwanese residing overseas, because, according to the commission’s own official statement, its job is to “serve more than 40 million overseas Chinese.”
The “status quo” caused Lim to ask why taxes collected in Taiwan are used to serve a population twice as large as Taiwan’s national population — with many among them having no connection to Taiwan whatsoever.
The remark brought criticism from KMT politicians and some pro-KMT overseas Chinese — as they might be preferred to be called — with a Los Angeles-based Chinese organization leader saying that overseas Chinese communities contributed to the founding of the Republic of China (ROC) in 1912, and the government should not give them up.
True, “overseas Chinese” might have contributed to the founding of the ROC, but the China they helped to create was taken over by the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Even the ROC Constitution recognizes that its jurisdiction now covers only Taiwan, some of its outlying islands and the Kinmen and Matsu islands.
This is exactly why, after constitutional reform in 1992, the Legislative Yuan and the abolished national assembly no longer keep, or elect, lawmakers representing constituencies now under the rule of the PRC.
As the ROC only governs Taiwan and its outlying islands, is it not ridiculous — and a huge waste of money — that the ROC government spends money on organizations with little connection to Taiwan, especially those that get funding from both the ROC and the PRC?
If the original ROC system dating back to 1912 is to be maintained, why do the KMT and its supporters not propose to resume elections for representatives from Beijing, Shanghai or even Mongolia?
The proposal to deal with the KMT’s ill-gotten party assets has also been a target of criticism from KMT supporters, who labeled such proposals a “political struggle” or “political purge,” not transitional justice.
However, the KMT should realize that, to achieve transitional justice, there is a price to pay, and it might have to suffer, not because it is being targeted, but because it was the perpetrator of the White Terror.
Thousands of people were killed during the White Terror era — sometimes for no apparent reason — and thousands of families were broken.
The KMT also illegitimately obtained assets owned by the former Japanese colonial government, which should have become the property of the ROC government, not the party.
Transitional justice and the return of the KMT’s ill-gotten assets are not issues that only the Democratic Progressive Party insists upon. According to the results of an opinion poll by the Chinese-language magazine Business Today, 76.3 percent of respondents said Taiwan has yet to achieve transitional justice, while 67.4 percent said that the KMT’s assets should be returned to the people — 53.7 percent of respondents who identified themselves as KMT supporters also agreed.
If the KMT wants to become a “normal” political party in a democracy, it should admit its mistakes and cooperate with Taiwanese.
Strong opposition from the KMT and vested interest holders is an indication that reforms are on the right track.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers