After its severe defeat in the presidential and legislative elections in January last year, the once proud Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) now seems to have damaged its reputation even further by resorting to obstructionist tactics in the Legislative Yuan, as well as in the streets.
Two articles in the Taipei Times about the role the KMT intends to play in Taiwan’s democracy concerned me.
Does the party intend to be a loyal and constructive opposition that strengthens Taiwan’s democracy, or does it intend to follow a destructive “scorched earth” policy?
The first article said KMT supporters — including former police officers — plan to “shadow” President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) wherever she goes, intending to obstruct her movements (“Protesters disclose ‘guerilla’ tactics,” July 9, page 1).
Former National Police Agency Internal Affairs Office director Keng Chi-wen (耿繼文), one of the most prominent former police officers participating in the protests, was quoted as saying that “guerrilla” tactics can be used to get close to the president, with other former officers who are familiar with presidential security showing protesters how to congregate and scatter along potential motorcade routes.
If the KMT were a self-respecting party that is dedicated to freedom and democracy it would distance itself from such despicable tactics and denounce them in the strongest possible terms.
KMT chairman-elect Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) knows very well that this is not the way to promote democracy and he should make it clear that his party clearly disassociates itself from Keng and his police officers turned goons.
A second article described plans by the KMT caucus to stall the legislative review of the Forward-looking Infrastructure Development Program budget by filing 5,000 legislative motions (“Lawmakers pan stall tactics,” July 10, page 3).
The article said that the budget review is planned to begin today, with Premier Lin Chuan (林全) scheduled to report to the Legislative Yuan.
The KMT caucus is now threatening to disrupt the review process with procedural and non-procedural tactics, and obstruct the premier’s speech.
While a healthy debate is essential for a democracy, these tactics look suspiciously like obstructionism, which does not befit a venerable KMT.
If it goes down this road, it is likely to further damage its public image and lose even more ground in the next election.
A more constructive approach would be to engage in a healthy debate on the issues and on the substance of the proposals.
Taiwan needs to modernize its infrastructure to compete internationally and to enhance the standard of living. The proposed infrastructure program is a major step in the right direction.
Differences can exist on how these programs should be implemented and how fast. Key is the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the implementation.
The KMT caucus would do well to focus on these aspects, and show that it can be a responsible and rational player in Taiwan’s democracy.
The path toward the future will not be easy because of the perpetual dark cloud of China looming on the horizon, but Taiwanese — including the KMT — can ensure that the nation has a bright future if they learn how to make democracy work, and live together in peace and harmony.
Gerrit van der Wees is a former Dutch diplomat and former editor of Taiwan Communique, who now teaches Taiwanese history at George Mason University in Virginia.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
The war between Israel and Iran offers far-reaching strategic lessons, not only for the Middle East, but also for East Asia, particularly Taiwan. As tensions rise across both regions, the behavior of global powers, especially the US under the US President Donald Trump, signals how alliances, deterrence and rapid military mobilization could shape the outcomes of future conflicts. For Taiwan, facing increasing pressure and aggression from China, these lessons are both urgent and actionable. One of the most notable features of the Israel-Iran war was the prompt and decisive intervention of the US. Although the Trump administration is often portrayed as
RSS