The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) took its campaign against the Ill-gotten Party Assets Settlement Committee international this week, telling foreign media that the asset issue should be handled by the nation’s judicial system, not the committee, and complaining of a government vendetta against it.
However, KMT Vice Chairman Jason Hu’s (胡志強) performance at the news conference was about as likely to convince the foreign media of the validity of the party’s grievances as that of other KMT officials with the average Taiwanese.
While the former Taichung mayor said that the KMT’s assets might have been “improperly or inappropriately acquired,” he reiterated the absurd claim, first raised in March, that the gold reserves the KMT government moved from China to Taiwan “were primarily considered a party asset,” along with “treasures in the National Palace Museum,” and that the KMT had given “some of its assets to the state.”
The KMT’s love-hate relationship with historical facts reached a new low with that rapacious assertion, which KMT Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) has been repeating at regular intervals this year in the hope that someone will think it is true.
As basis for that claim, Hung in August said that Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) made the decision to move museum artifacts and gold to Taiwan as chairman of the KMT, and not as the president of the ROC.
Chiang was KMT director-general at the time, and he also held the post of ROC president from May 20, 1948 to Jan. 21, 1949, and according to Chen Chin-chang’s (陳錦昌) book Chiang Kai-shek’s Retreat to Taiwan, the official decision to transport artifacts from the museum — along with the National Central Library and Academia Sinica’s Institute of History and Philology — was made on Nov. 10, 1948.
Twenty days later, Chiang issued the order to secretly move gold from the Central Bank of China to Taiwan, a story also recounted in The Archives of Gold by Wu Sing-yung (吳興鏞), whose father, lieutenant general Wu Song-ching (吳嵩慶), had been entrusted to carry out the order.
So the million taels of gold and silver and foreign currency reserves moved to Taiwan came not from the KMT’s coffers, but the central bank. Whether Chiang was wearing his KMT hat or his president’s cap, the central bank was not the KMT’s or Chiang’s personal piggy bank, nor were China’s foreign reserves or the crates of palace museum riches the KMT’s.
Despite Hung’s rationale, neither she nor the KMT is making a similar claim to the items transferred from the National Central Library and the institute — or the Beijing Library, which was added to the evacuation effort along with the National Central Museum — which undercuts her defense.
It is past time to shut such absurd claims down. Then-National Palace Museum director Feng Ming-chu (馮明珠) made a rather weak effort in March, when she told lawmakers that the museum’s collection belonged to the ROC and that all of its artifacts had been registered with the Ministry of Finance.
She ignored the principle of the case against the KMT: Just because the KMT ran a party-state government in China and then in Taiwan does not make everything that belonged to the ROC government in China — or Taiwan — the property of the KMT.
As for Hu’s call for the judiciary to handle the KMT’s assets issue, perhaps the KMT should not be counting on help from that quarter, since on Friday last week, the Taipei High Administrative Court rejected a petition by the KMT to suspend the committee’s decision that Central Investment Co and Hsinyutai Co are KMT affiliates and therefore the party’s ill-gotten assets.
During the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum’s third leadership summit on Aug. 31, US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun said that the US wants to partner with the other members of the Quadrilaterial Security Dialogue — Australia, India and Japan — to establish an organization similar to NATO, to “respond to ... any potential challenge from China.” He said that the US’ purpose is to work with these nations and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region to “create a critical mass around the shared values and interest of those parties,” and possibly attract more countries to establish an alliance comparable to
On August 24, 2020, the US Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, made an important statement: “The Pentagon is Prepared for China.” Going forward, how might the Department of Defense team up with Taiwan to make itself even more prepared? No American wants to deter the next war by a paper-thin margin, and no one appreciates the value of strategic overmatch more than the war planners at the Pentagon. When the stakes are this high, you can bet they want to be super ready. In recent months, we have witnessed a veritable flood of high-level statements from US government leaders on
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new