Fourteen years ago, after the Tiananmen Square incident, the Chinese communist authorities purged the activists and blamed "KMT secret agents" for the democratic protest. At that time, I wrote an article in the Capital Morning Post. I said in the article:
"The strife between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has resulted in many `bandit spies' (匪諜) and `KMT secret agents' (國特). The KMT refers to CCP secret agents as `bandit spies,' while the CCP calls those sent by the KMT `KMT secret agents.'
Over the past 40 years, the KMT has caught many `bandit spies' and the CCP has captured many `KMT secret agents.' Some of course were real spies, while many others were not.
The KMT awarded the `bandit spy' title to dissidents or those it felt uncomfortable with. It was a convenient excuse to arrest people and put them away. The other trick the KMT used was to post a `bandit spy' near someone it wanted to arrest so it could accuse him or her of not reporting the spy.
"Similarly, the CCP has created many fake KMT secret agents to purge dissidents. It blamed the KMT for the Tiananmen Square incident and arrested many `KMT secret agents' who had allegedly incited people to rise up in rebellion. The KMT and the CCP have in fact helped each other with excuses to do away with dissidents so as to solidify their power. Their symbiotic relationship can be seen from this."
That was what I wrote 14 years ago. Today the KMT is no longer in a position to make up stories about bandit spies, but the CCP has not stopped using the method. The only difference is that the "KMT secret agents" are now called "Taiwanese spies" (
In the past, the KMT used the CCP to level false charges against dissidents. It was a dirty trick, but it still made some sense. Now the party is blaming President Chen Shui-bian (
It is a widely known fact that China has deployed more than 400 missiles along the coast pointing at Taiwan. So I was not surprised at all when Chen announced that there were, in fact, 496 missiles, since this number was not far from what we had already known.
The pan-blue politicians, however, seized the opportunity to criticize Chen for leaking military secrets, a move that could kill "our intelligence personnel."
I was surprised to hear that. When did these pro-China politicians, who asked us not to irritate China, start caring about "our intelligence personnel"?
Aren't the pan-blues worried that they would irritate China by pointing out that so many of "our intelligence personnel" are working in China?
They accused Chen of leaking military secrets by disclosing the number of missiles. But in my opinion, they were the ones leaking military secrets regarding the fact that we had so many agents working in China. After all, if Chen unveiled any military secrets, they were China's military secrets, while the secrets the pan-blue politicians revealed were Taiwan's.
In view of the noises made by the pan-KMT politicians, Beijing would of course cooperate by creating a few stories about "Taiwanese spies."
And that's exactly what happened. Taiwanese businesspeople in China disappeared.
Pan-blue politicians and the pro-China media again seized the chance to blame Chen as if their prophecy had come true.
Businesspeople disappear in China every year.
No disappearances happened as a result of Chen's disclosure.
The pan-KMT group did not condemn the Chinese communist authorities for trampling human rights and the rule of law.
Instead, it used the spy case as an excuse to attack the Chen administration. I do not know how to look at the party anymore. In the past, they got rid of dissidents with Chinese bandit spy stories; now, they still use China's dictatorship to fight against their political rivals. It is another kind of cooperation between the KMT and the CCP.
I feel sorry for some ignorant and servile Taiwanese people who believe in the propaganda of the old forces. Aren't they afraid of China's ridicule and the censure of their future generations?
Lee Shiao-feng is a professor at Shih Hsin University.
Translated by Jennie Shih
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
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
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
RSS