In international political circles, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has long been known by its nickname -- "KMT Inc." This is because KMT Inc is a party that possesses not only political power but also great wealth, making it no different from a monopoly.
More than 10 ten years ago, the Taipei Society published a document that outlined property owned by the KMT. This made quite a stir. It allowed the public to have a glimpse at the businesses owned by KMT Inc and made the issue of party assets, which had long been taboo, a public political issue. The opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) also played a major role in disclosing the secret political and economic operations of the KMT over the past half century.
Now it has been three years since the two parties switched their roles as ruling and opposition parties. The KMT still does not seem to be determined to thoroughly examine the legitimacy of its assets. The party is still reluctant to redeem itself by returning its stolen assets. That is why the DPP is using the issue to attack the KMT as the presidential election draws near.
Before the presidential election in 2000, then KMT presidential candidate Lien Chan (
As representatives of the public, attorney Henry Rai (賴浩敏) and I were invited to participate in the task force as consultants and supervisors. As I recall, two meetings were held before the election.
Rai and I insisted that, first, the task force make a real effort to succeed in its work, instead of just feigning an effort; otherwise, it would lose the public's trust.
Second, the reason that the KMT's assets were to be put into a trust was not mismanagement or business losses. Rather, it was that impropriety might have been involved in the acquisition of the property.
Third, making public a list of the party's assets was not enough. The processes by which the assets had been acquired had to be made clear as well. The party first needed to judge on its own whether these assets were legally acquired, and then let the public make up its mind. All of these steps had to be taken right away.
At that time, though the media covered the task force widely, the DPP thought of it as nothing more than a campaign trick to make Lien look good. However, because Rai and I did not want the task force to be used as a campaign tool, we had agreed to be consultants.
We believed that the KMT's assets had to be exposed in order to provide justice to society and the country. Since that was what the KMT said it wanted to do, we welcomed the effort.
Frankly speaking, the task force did not do much before the election.
It only listed real estate assets under the KMT's name. It mentioned nothing about its more disputed assets. Rai and I insisted in task force meetings that the KMT must deal with these assets quickly.
But my impression at the time was that there was no time for any concrete measures to deal with party assets before the election. It was thus up to the people to decide whether the KMT and Lien had the credibility and determination to take any meaningful steps.
Lien lost the election and the KMT lost the political power it had enjoyed over the past 50 years.
I thought that the KMT would be more active in dealing with its assets in a new political environment. Especially back then, the party was emphasizing reform. Solving the problem of party assets seemed to be essential to the reforms. Therefore I was hopeful.
After the election, the KMT requested that Rai and I continue to serve as consultants on the task force.
At the first meeting after the election, the documents that KMT Secretary-General Lin Fong-cheng (
Rai and I encouraged the KMT to make these lists public. At the same time, we reminded the party that legal registration was not equal to legal acquisition. If the KMT was determined to reform itself after its election defeat, it had to make known the facts surrounding the acquisition of its assets, so as to reconstruct the party's image.
That first meeting after the election was the last meeting that I attended.
I do not know whether the party has made any progress over the past three years. Neither do I know if the KMT and Lien have changed their minds about how to deal with the issue of party assets.
However, to judge from the KMT's remarks the other day saying the DPP should not use the issue to attack the KMT before the presidential election, and should not force the party to return seven movie theaters and make public a list of party assets, I believe that the KMT has wasted three years, during which it could have reformed itself by taking the initiative in solving the problem. But instead it has chosen to blame the DPP for destroying its image.
Now, looking back on my experience of four years ago in dealing with KMT assets, I feel a bit disappointed.
Michael Hsiao is executive director of the Center for Asia-Pacific Area Studies at Academia Sinica.
Translated by Jennie Shih
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS