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
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS