It is understandable how the passage of the Act on Promoting Transitional Justice (促進轉型正義條例) on Tuesday last week has made the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) very antsy.
The enactment, aiming to review and address the legacy of injustices left by the former KMT authoritarian regime from Aug. 15, 1945 (when Japan ended its colonial rule of Taiwan) to Nov. 6, 1992 (when martial law on the outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu ended), stipulates the rectification of unjust verdicts under martial law, the removal of public displays of authoritarian symbols commemorating dictators, and the retrieval of ill-gotten party assets and political archives held by political parties and affiliated organizations, among other things.
The law has no doubt touched the nerve of the KMT, as it deals with many things that the party holds dear to its heart, including former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) — who is enshrined in the KMT charter as the “Director-General of the Party” (國民黨總裁) — its party assets and its political archives, which it has repeatedly barred from review by Academia Historica and the National Archive Administration.
The KMT would do well to remember the words of former US president John F. Kennedy, who said: “When written in Chinese, the word ‘crisis’ (危機) is composed of two characters — one represents danger and the other represents opportunity.”
If the KMT’s leaders are wise enough, they would realize that the act’s enactment and implementation present the party with an invaluable opportunity to turn over a new leaf.
For decades, especially since the nation’s democratization in the early 1990s, KMT members have carried with them the “original sin” of the party’s authoritarian past. Whenever elections roll around, KMT candidates, instead of focusing on expounding their campaign platforms on how they hope to serve their constituencies, are put on the spot having to defend their party’s former leaders, if not its ill-gotten assets.
This “original sin” — stemming from the party’s despotic past, which brought agony and suffering to many during the White Terror era — is a major reason why many Taiwanese find the party untrustworthy.
The new law presents a chance for all KMT members to rid themselves of this historical burden and allow prospective candidates to truly and fairly compete with their electoral opponents as they would no longer be viewed by voters through history’s lens.
The first step is easy: All the KMT has to do to demonstrate that it has been reborn and kept pace with progress and changes in values is to proactively assist the government in implementing transitional justice measures set forth under the law.
According to a poll by the Taiwanese Public Opinion Foundation in July last year, only 16 percent of respondents said they liked the KMT. The poll also showed that while the DPP led other parties in terms of public image, as it was perceived as the party that best represents the interests of Taiwanese, the KMT was viewed as a party that represents the interests of Chinese and rich people.
As Academia Historica director Wu Mi-cha (吳密察) has said, the KMT can borrow from the impetus of the transitional justice process and win support by showing commitment to its efforts.
“If this is done well, then no individual or party will be held accountable for past crimes,” Wu said.
Taiwanese are known for their graciousness. If the KMT could take concrete action to prove it is making a genuine effort to carry out transitional justice, strengthen pro-localization consciousness and realign itself with mainstream public opinion, it might have the chance to redeem itself in the eyes of the public.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with