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.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS