Following a fierce campaign battle over the past six or seven months, the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) performance was less than ideal, as it was defeated in the presidential and legislative elections on Jan. 11.
The young generation of party members now have the responsibility to face the concerns of the next generation.
To do so, we must review the party’s political direction and cross-strait policy to determine whether it is capable of aligning itself with public opinion and taking Taiwanese forward.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) upheld its policy of protecting Taiwan against China while campaigning, but what exactly was the KMT’s discourse?
In the past, young KMT members repeatedly urged the party leadership and KMT Central Standing Committee to review its policy on the “1992 consensus” — the view that there is “one China, with each side having its own interpretation [of what China is],” which has been used by the party as a magical “political talisman.”
The older generation’s only response to these calls was to recall the glory of 1992 cross-strait negotiations and share stories of the situation during the talks.
While the KMT was unwilling to face up to the reality of today’s situation, People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜), when campaigning for president, said that even if the pan-blue camp expressed its opposition to Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formula loudly and resolutely, the three-decade old “1992 consensus” is outdated and unworkable.
However, the KMT is holding on hard to the “1992 consensus” as if it were as precious as an ancestral tablet, and has absolutely no intention of discussing whether the position is still legitimate.
The DPP, on the other hand, has been able to gradually conceal its pro-Taiwanese independence party platform and adjust its political position by saying that it is protecting Taiwan against China, while leaning toward the political center by using the national title “Republic of China, Taiwan.”
This raises the question of whether the KMT has the courage to adjust its discourse just as the DPP has done.
The KMT’s position used to be that it was fighting communism, as the Chinese Communist Party’s rule caused hardship for Chinese. Faced with China’s growing national strength and international clout, this is a position that will be difficult to maintain.
As China is the world’s second-largest economy, the KMT’s continued insistence that it will retake the Chinese mainland and unify China is nothing but an unrealistic joke.
It is our obligation to face up to the next generation.
If the KMT really wants to continue to exist over the next 20 or 40 years, it must look inward and try to determine whether the party and its cross-strait policy will be able to develop in step with public opinion.
Allen Tien is chairman of the KMT Youth League.
Translated by Eddy Chang
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
RSS