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.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
Taiwan no longer wants to merely manufacture the chips that power artificial intelligence (AI). It aims to build the software, platforms and services that run on them. Ten major AI infrastructure projects, a national cloud computing center in Tainan, the sovereign language model Trustworthy AI Dialogue Engine, five targeted industry verticals — from precision medicine to smart agriculture — and the goal of ranking among the world’s top five in computing power by 2040: The roadmap from “Silicon Island” to “Smart Island” is drawn. The question is whether the western plains, where population, industry and farmland are concentrated, have the water and
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
RSS