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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS