Over the past eight years, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) frequently accused the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) of “opposing the government only for the sake of opposing” and now the comment best describes the KMT itself, especially its members’ criticism of the use of the term “Chinese Taipei” at the World Health Assembly (WHA).
Addressing a WHA meeting at the Palais des Nations in Geneva on Wednesday, Minister of Health and Welfare Lin Tzou-yien (林奏延) used the term “Chinese Taipei” when referring to Taiwan, but did not use “Taiwan” at all.
It was no surprise that immediately after the speech, DPP Legislator Tsai Shih-ying (蔡適應) and New Power Party Legislator Freddy Lim (林昶佐) — who were in the observers’ seats during the speech — expressed their “regret” and “disappointment” respectively.
However, some people’s jaws might have dropped hearing the strong reaction from the KMT.
In addition to criticisms from individual KMT lawmakers and politicians, the KMT legislative caucus on Friday attempted — unsuccessfully — to propose a motion to condemn Lin over his “downgrading” of Taiwan’s status as a sovereign state by failing to mention “Taiwan” in his speech and to demand the minister apologize for it.
Anyone with a knowledge of Taiwan’s political scene knows that the KMT has been a firm defender of the term “Chinese Taipei.”
Although KMT politicians claim that they would prefer to use “the Republic of China,” they consider “Chinese Taipei” acceptable, as it is in accordance with the so-called “1992 consensus” allegedly reached by representatives from the Straits Exchange Foundation and China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits in 1992 that both sides of the Strait are parts of “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “China” means.
KMT politicians have often been upset with and lashed out at some DPP or other pro-independence politicians for opposing the use of “Chinese Taipei,” saying that it was a move to break the cross-strait consensus that might bring serious consequences if China was upset.
According to this logic, should the KMT not be the first to praise a minister from the DPP administration who uses the term “Chinese Taipei” and defend him against Tsai’s “regret” and Lim’s “disappointment?”
The ridiculous development shows that the KMT is not a party that sticks to its ideas and principles — it is a party that “opposes only for the sake of opposing” and is willing to try anything to make its rival look bad, rather than thinking of the nation’s future.
This mentality can also be seen in the party’s attitude regarding proposed amendments to the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法) and the Referendum Act (公民投票法). In the past, the KMT opposed relaxing such laws, but ahead of the transition of power, it suddenly moved to accept amendments proposed by the DPP to relax the regulations on demonstrations, as well as lowering the threshold for holding referendum.
In a statement explaining the shift, KMT Central Policy Committee executive director Alex Tsai (蔡正元) said that since the DPP would be taking over the government, the KMT no longer needed to “look after the DPP.”
So, this is how the KMT thinks. It supports or opposes a policy or a proposed amendment not because it is good or bad for the nation, but because it is good or bad for the KMT — or its rivals.
As for the “Chinese Taipei” issue, at least pan-green politicians spoke up against something that a DPP official said when it was not in line with their long-time beliefs, while the KMT spoke against it only because a DPP official said it.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under