As expected, former deputy legislative speaker Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), advocate of the “one China, same interpretation” formula, won the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairperson by-election and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), in his capacity as the Chinese Communist Party general secretary, promptly congratulated her.
Hung’s victory signifies that the KMT will not change its ways to become more Taiwan-centered just because it lost the Jan. 16 elections. Instead, it will continue pushing its “China ideology” and goal of eventual unification. The KMT’s stance bolsters Xi’s determination and is a victory for his political course.
Having been steeped in 5,000 years of stale, stagnant culture, the Chinese are unbeatable: Beijing would never back down from its “one China” principle and the KMT would never stop supporting the Republic of China’s “one China” Constitution.
Pro-localization parties that claim to represent Taiwan talk about “pragmatism” and “reconciliation,” as they come under pressure from cross-strait political and business organizations, and adjust their beliefs to adhere to the “one China” Constitution.
Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) recently said that “without its party assets, the KMT would be done for.” Is that really true?
Following the Sunflower movement, the leaders in Beijing started laying out a “four-year counterattack” plan and proposed a policy called the “three middle and one young” aimed at Taiwan’s small and medium-sized enterprises, medium and low-income households, central and southern Taiwan, and Taiwan’s younger generation.
Beijing has also set up the China National Development Foundation for outgoing President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to facilitate cooperation between the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits and the Straits Exchange Foundation after president-elect Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) takes office on May 20.
The “three middle and one young” policy is aimed at consolidating the strategy of bringing about unification through economic means among Taiwan’s grassroots. However, connecting with the low-income and middle classes as well as the younger generation requires a presence in Taiwan. That is the reason Beijing and Ma continue to care about the trade in services and goods agreements.
If the two agreements are passed, China can take advantage of its huge market to take over Taiwan’s service industries — including logistics, the Internet of Things and media — in the same way that Chinese travelers dominate Taiwan’s tourism industry. And it would not take four years.
The economic unification triad formed by the two agreements and the “three middle and one young” policy would be 100 times more powerful than the KMT’s billions of New Taiwan dollars worth of party assets and it would be sufficient to redraw Taiwan’s political map over the next four years.
It is important not to be taken in by opinion polls which show that 70 percent of Taiwanese identify themselves as Taiwanese and believe in independence as a result of natural progression, because in another poll asking about people’s expectations about the direction of the nation, 49.7 percent said they think unification is unavoidable.
That view would rapidly spread once China’s economic tentacles reach into every corner of Taiwan. It would become a formidable force.
Whether or not Hung would be able to make the KMT rise from its ashes will depend on how quickly the economic triad comes together and how well it will be complemented by another triad — Beijing, Hung and the foundation.
Huang Tien-lin is a former advisory member of the National Security Council and a former Presidential Office adviser.
Translated by Perry Svensson
In a Facebook post on Wednesday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) wrote: “The KMT must fall for Taiwan to improve.’ Allow me to ask the question again: Is this really true?” It matters not how many times Hsu asks the question, my answer will always be the same: “Yes, the KMT must be toppled for Taiwan to improve.” In the lengthy Facebook post, titled “What were those born in the 1980s guilty of?” Hsu harked back to the idealistic aspirations of the 2014 Sunflower movement before heaping opprobrium on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP)
The scuffle between Chinese embassy staffers in Fiji and a Taiwanese diplomat at a Republic of China (ROC) Double Ten National Day celebration has turned into a public relations opportunity for the government, Beijing and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Although the incident occurred on Oct. 8, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) downplayed it, only for the story to be picked up by the foreign media, forcing the ministry to respond. The public and opposition parties asked why the government had failed to remonstrate more strongly in the first instance. It is still unclear whether the ministry missed a trick
US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, former US vice president Joe Biden, are holding their final debate tonight. In their foreign policy debate, China is sure to be a major issue of contention for the two candidates. Here are several questions the moderator should pose to the candidates: For both: In the first televised US presidential debates in 1960, then-Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy and his Republican counterpart, Richard Nixon, were asked whether the US should intervene if communist China attacked Taiwan’s outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu. Kennedy said no, unless the main island of Taiwan was also attacked.
For most of us, the colorful, otherworldly marinescapes of coral reefs are as remote as the alien landscapes of the moon. We rarely, if ever, experience these underwater wonderlands for ourselves — we are, after all, air-breathing, terrestrial creatures mostly cocooned in cities. It is easy not to notice the perilous state they are in: We have lost 50 percent of coral reefs in the past 20 years and more than 90 percent are expected to die by 2050, a presentation at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Diego, California, earlier this year showed. As the oceans heat further and