New faces, same old problems. Some things never change, especially, it appears, if it has anything to do with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
That seems to be the message the party has been sending in the past few weeks. The latest example came on Thursday when the KMT legislative caucus refused to send representatives to join their colleagues from other caucuses to meet premier-designate Lin Chuan (林全) during his visit to the Legislative Yuan.
KMT caucus whip Lin Te-fu (林德福) said his group was “just following precedent,” citing the absence of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) from similar meetings with KMT Cabinet officials when they visited the legislature.
Despite the passage of time and the KMT’s massive defeat in the Jan. 16 presidential and legislative elections, the party’s new leadership and lawmakers look like they are preparing for a repeat of the obstructionism seen during the eight years of former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration, even if KMT Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) did tell her 35 lawmakers at the beginning of last month that she hoped they would refrain from “opposing [bills] just for the sake of opposition.”
Even as the KMT heads into the past, it dallies with new — for it — tactics, such as the KMT caucus’ first-ever occupation of the legislative speaker’s podium. While the DPP all too frequently resorted to that tactic ever since its arrival in the legislature, unlike the DPP, the KMT was not trying to block a floor vote on a motion — the occupation came only after the motion had already been passed.
The history of the Chen administration was a history of KMT obstructionism to just about everything that came out of the Presidential Office Building or the Executive Yuan, even if it flew in the face of common sense and national security.
A prime example was the special arms-procurement bill, which became nothing more than a football for KMT lawmakers to kick around for years, setting records for blocking a single bill in the Procedure Committee. The years of delay by the KMT forced the US to change the way it handled arms sales to Taiwan, requiring the Legislative Yuan to first pass a budget to buy US weaponry and equipment before Washington agrees to sell them.
The KMT — and its People First Party ally — argument that the price was too high and the package had to be part of the annual military budget, not a special budget, using the lame excuse that it was simply trying to protect taxpayers’ money, showed that the pan-blue camp was far more effective in ensuring that Taiwan’s defense needs went unmet than any temper tantrum or other tactic Beijing might employ.
Just as it did during the Chen administration, the KMT is trying to play the ethnicity card. Its caucus said the DPP’s efforts to promote transitional justice, along with its draft legislation for a transitional justice commission, was just an excuse to implement “green terror.”
Hung, who had taken issue with just about every proposal made by DPP legislators and ideas floated by the incoming administration, said that she is worried about “the DPP’s habit of saying one thing, but doing another” and about the DPP pushing through inappropriate and controversial bills with its majority, without respecting the minority.
That is just what the KMT has done for decades.
The faces in the leadership positions in the KMT are different from those that faced Chen’s administration when it took office in 2000, but 16 years later it looks like president-elect Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and her team will face the same tricks as their predecessors.
However, the one thing the KMT keeps forgetting is that unlike in 2000, Tsai will be able to work with the DPP’s majority in the legislature to get her government’s legislation and policies passed.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with