As the legislature discusses regulations regarding illicit party assets, each party has been proposing its own version of how such a bill should be worded. Even the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has seemingly accepted its fate and proposed its own version, while a few days ago, the KMT’s legislative caucus suggested that the party give up its assets, after deducting retirement funds for party workers.
At a glance, this looks good, but it is neither reasonable nor just; it is just another attempt to fudge the issue. A party that for so long has made huge profits by not distinguishing between itself and the government — using its power to amass funds and using that money to further increase its power — should not be let off the hook so easily.
Transitional justice means holding public hearings to scrutinize the source of every party asset and how it was obtained since the party came to Taiwan, through the 228 Incident, the White Terror era and up to this day. Only with a factual basis will it be possible to ascertain how much wealth the party has stolen.
The Palace luxury complex in Taipei, for example, is on the site occupied by Taiwan Broadcasting Corp’s headquarters during the Japanese colonial era. When Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) came to Taiwan, he ordered that the Central Broadcasting Affairs Management Office, the predecessor of the Broadcasting Corp of China (BCC), take over that plot of land, thus turning public property into a KMT asset. The party sold the land for NT$9 billion (US$273 million at today’s exchange rates) — raising funds for election expenses — to Hung Sheng Construction Ltd (宏盛建設), which built The Palace.
This plot of land should belong to the Republic of China (ROC) government and all Taiwanese. This was not an isolated case of turning public property into party property, and this was generally how the KMT gained its assets.
The manner in which almost every asset of local party branches was acquired — the National Women’s League, the China Youth Corps and other organizations in the KMT periphery — is equally problematic.
In the past, the net value of the KMT’s assets was frequently estimated to be about NT$100 billion, but the party has recently been saying that it is no more than NT$16 billion. Most of the KMT’s assets were stolen or seized from the public during the early years of its one-party rule. If NT$16 billion is all that remains, surely an investigation must be launched to find out who has been emptying the coffers and who profited from it.
The talk about deducting pension funds for party workers is even more absurd. The party assets were stolen; who has ever heard of thieves saying that they must be allowed to share the loot with their gang members before they can return whatever is left?
During their stints as KMT chairmen, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and New Taipei City Mayor Eric Chu (朱立倫) said that they would handle the party assets issue, but nothing ever came of it. They insist that the party’s current assets are legal, but many of them were made legal by passing whatever legislation or administrative regulations were required to make them so.
Appropriate investigations and reviews will be required to determine whether the assets are truly legal and legitimate.
The KMT has lost the opportunity to handle the issue by itself. The party no longer decides matters on its own and it can no longer distribute its remaining assets as it sees fit.
If the party cannot even understand this point, it deserves to be swept into the dustbin of history.
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
Astride an ascended economy and military, with global influence nearing biblical proportions, Xi Jinping (習近平) — general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), chairman of the Central Military Commission and president of the People’s Republic of China — is faithfully heralded, in deeds and imagery, as a benevolent lord, determined to “build a community of common destiny for all mankind.” Rather than leading humanity to this Shangri-La through inspirational virtue a la Mahatma Gandhi or Abraham Lincoln, the CCP prefers a micromanagement doctrine of socialism with Chinese characteristics as the guiding light. A doctrine of Marxist orthodoxy transplanted under a canvas
On Sept. 8, at the high-profile Ketagalan security forum, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) urged countries to deal with the China challenge. She said: “It is time for like-minded countries, and democratic friends in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond, to discuss a framework to generate sustained and concerted efforts to maintain a strategic order that deters unilateral aggressive actions.” The “Taiwan model” to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic provides an alternative to China’s authoritarian way of handling it. Taiwan’s response to the health crisis has made it evident that countries across the world have much to learn from Taiwan’s best practices and if