On Aug. 24, in his weekly electronic letter, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) said that it was time the public directly expressed its opinion through a referendum to decide whether the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) should return its "stolen wealth" to the state.
It is quite understandable that some people, particularly pan-blue-camp supporters, think that Chen and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) are doing this to divert attention from the ongoing anti-Chen movement.
However, there is no doubt that resolution of the KMT's assets is long overdue. If there is a truly non-partisan national issue, this is it.
A recent DPP survey found that 77.8 percent of respondents support the return of assets "stolen" by the KMT. Among pan-blue supporters, 70.9 percent shared this view.
Is it not crystal clear that there has been a general consensus on this issue for many years?
Unlike changing Taiwan's national title and the adoption of a new constitution, this is a domestic issue that does not affect the US' national interest. There is no reason to be concerned about possible interference from the US.
Why then have the Chen administration and the DPP not succeeded in taking advantage of the issue when even KMT leaders have realized that the party's wealth would be a burden?
If the pan-green camp had pushed hard enough for this issue to be resolved, the national coffers would have been boosted.
The KMT's own report released on Aug. 23 admitted to NT$80.8 billion (US$2.33 billion) in party assets when Lien Chan (連戰) took over as party chairman in 2000. But according to Chen Yi-shen (陳儀深) ("Sloth and politics stop recovery of KMT assets," Sept. 3, page 8), the party greatly underestimated the number of its stolen assets.
In addition to benefiting the national treasury, the process of uncovering how the KMT amassed its wealth would have confirmed that the party is greedy and corrupt. Most importantly, the KMT's financial wings would have been clipped. The playing field would consequently have been made more level in the political contest between it and the DPP.
A more level playing field would also have been beneficial to the People First Party (PFP) in its competition with the KMT for the support of pan-blue voters. With this in mind, PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) at one time was ready to support a bill depriving the KMT of its assets.
According to a Taipei Times report on Aug. 25 ("KMT forms `assets response team,'" page 3), Soong challenged the KMT over its apparent failure to clarify which assets had been acquired illegally.
He also made it clear that the KMT should return the money to the public if any assets were acquired illegally. It is also important to point out that KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
The same report said that there were prominent KMT members, such as Taichung Mayor Jason Hu (
For Hu, apparently, "votes are more important than money."
But there are other KMT members who have opposed making any concessions.
For example, KMT Legislator John Chiang (蔣孝嚴), on behalf of his grandfather Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and father Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), did not think that the KMT had to explain anything.
There is no doubt that much of the KMT's wealth has been used to subsidize candidates in elections, buy votes and arrange for perks and job offers for party members.
Such expenses have contributed to the nearly three-fold drop over a four-year period (2002-2005) of the party's wealth from NT$80.8 billion under Lien to NT$27.7 billion when Ma assumed the chairmanship a year ago.
And despite its litany of crimes over the decades, including the 228 Incident and the murder of then political dissident Lin I-hsiung's (
How could other political parties counter the unfair advantage that the KMT created from enormous wealth?
In a Taipei Times article ("Shih's new campaign is a sorry tale," Aug. 17, page 8), Linda Gail Arrigo wrote: "Corruption has been long ingrained in Taiwan society, down to the lowest levels, and the change of ruling parties has only begun to alter the rules. We cannot defend the DPP in general or the president in particular insofar as they have taken the easier route of continuing past habits, trying to buy off the obstacles, and perhaps even lining their own pockets with unearned rewards."
It is not too farfetched for us to believe that "taking the easier route of continuing past habits" has become one of the strategies that Chen and the DPP have attempted to even the political playing field.
Regardless of what Ma has promised, the KMT will not voluntarily surrender its wealth to the state. Instead, the KMT has reportedly sold five major assets for more than NT$11.4 billion within the last year.
It is expected that the party will continue to dispose of its other assets.
It would also be a mistake to expect the KMT-dominated legislature to take action.
And even if the legislature should pass a law on the matter, it would be a long process and produce toothless legislation in terms of dealing a blow to the KMT's treasury.
The problem must therefore be resolved by way of a national referendum.
Because this is a national issue on which there is broad consensus, the public must demonstrate its will and resolve this problem once and for all.
In addition, the public should make it known that the political playing field must be leveled to ensure that there will be fair competition between political parties.
When this is done, Taiwanese will be able to claim that their democratic country has taken a giant step forward.
Chen Ching-chih is a research fellow at the Institute for Taiwanese Studies in Los Angeles, California.
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
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
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
RSS