A draft bill for the management of “illicit party assets” recently passed its first legislative reading. Although the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus tried its best to block the bill, the party’s minority status, coupled with a misunderstanding of procedural rules, rendered its attempt unsuccessful.
KMT Administration and Management Committee Director Chiu Da-chan (邱大展) criticized the bill during a Central Standing Committee meeting, saying it is designed to “exterminate” the KMT and is based on an assumption of guilt.
Chiu said that it would take the nation back to a form of government last seen in ancient China.
If the bill passes all three readings, the KMT would request a constitutional interpretation by the Council of Grand Justices, he added.
The KMT, having lost its legislative majority, is still trying to get used to its new role as the opposition party. It has not forgotten how, under former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, the Democratic Progressive Party and Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), in addition to holding public rallies, employed unorthodox protests on the legislative floor, which eventually inspired the Sunflower movement and led to the KMT’s landslide defeat in the January presidential and legislative elections.
The KMT thought it could play the same game. However, unfamiliar with the legislature’s procedural rules and with some members uncertain who and what they were fighting for, its protest ended in total failure.
The KMT has yet to realize that it is the public who is judge, jury and executioner of political debate. People do not always measure events according to the Constitution or what is defined as acceptable in the eyes of the law.
Consider the 2014 stabbing attack on the Taipei MRT system, in which four people were killed and 22 injured. Suppose that when the perpetrator, Cheng Chieh (鄭捷), was carrying out the attack, someone had intervened and killed Cheng. This person would have been held responsible for those actions under the law. However, in the eyes of the public, the person would have been a hero. If he or she were forced to pay compensation, many would make donations on behalf of that person.
Many would view this person as having heroically killed someone who deserved to die, despite the fact that the nation’s laws do not permit such an act. Politics is no different: The public will come to its own conclusion about what it believes is right or wrong.
For a long time both the TSU and pro-independence organizations have opposed the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement and the cross-strait service pact to prevent Taiwan from becoming over-dependent on China economically. A large number of Taiwanese support this view and, as a consequence, the Sunflower movement exploded onto the scene, which many saw as a positive development.
However, there was another important factor at play: Ma’s actions enraged the public. The TSU took on the role of spokesperson and, together with the Sunflower movement, struck a blow to the perpetrators.
The majority people are believe that the KMT’s assets were appropriated by improper means. Since the draft is a way to recover those assets, the KMT’s protests are seen as an attempt to hang on and are likely to further hasten its demise.
The party really is foolish. With the pan-green camp snapping at their heels, the KMT is attempting to dispose of its ill-gotten assets, instead of weeding out tainted individuals. As a consequence, the whole party has to carry the blame.
Chen Mao-hsiung is a retired National Sun Yat-sen University professor and a member of the Northern Taiwan Society.
Translated by Edward Jones
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