After serving as chairman of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) for some two years, Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) has decided not to run for re-election. His case is a textbook example of many of Taiwan’s politically dispossessed.
One is almost tempted to feel sorry for Wu as he steps down — or is pushed off the stage — by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九). I say almost, but that is as far as it goes.
Wu is one of those strange Hakka who, like many Aborigines and Hoklo, have a rightful place as masters in their own land but have given it up for the security of being second-class citizens in the KMT.
Why? What drives such people to prefer to settle for guaranteed crumbs and lower status that are provided by the KMT machine?
Wu has held semi-influential KMT positions. He got to be mayor of Taipei, and while the recent presidents of Taiwan have all been mayors of Taipei at some point, that was never on the cards for Wu.
Wu has never been one to risk all in seeking greatness like People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜). He has never risked; he has only accepted.
Thus Wu became party chairman, but solely with the backing of Ma.
With that stopgap purpose served, Ma is now telling Wu to step aside because he wants to be not only president of Taiwan but also in control of the party.
Wu has been the typical party man: loyal, unquestioning and subservient to the hierarchical totem pole.
Such party men bend to those above them; they accept the fact that they will always receive bestowed, not earned, positions. They are the unfortunate suffering servants.
This is said not with any reference to the prophet Isaiah. Rather, these men are simply servants in what should be a democratic society, and they certainly suffer. So do they deserve our sympathy? Or do they simply get what they deserve?
Wu was born in Taiwan in the Japanese colonial period. He should understand what it means to live under a colonial regime and therefore should realize that with the KMT, he has helped to substitute one colonial master for another.
Wu’s family suffered under the KMT during the White Terror period, but instead of learning that this is the price of democracy, Wu has only learned to bow and serve his new masters.
Hakka claim a fighting spirit and their history often bears this out, but their history also bears out that many have sacrificed fighting for principles in favor of fighting for bestowed favors.
They will do this even if it means maintaining second-class citizenship.
Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) is one of a few Taiwanese Hakka who played the system in an alien regime and kept his principles. Biding his time, he rose to the top.
In the 1990s, no one did more in a concrete way to develop Taiwan’s democracy than he.
But Lee eventually suffered KMT retaliation for this. Because he fostered democracy, he had to bear the brunt of the blame of the KMT losing its one-party state.
He ended up as an unwelcome Hakka guest in the KMT ranks.
In contrast, Wu is exiting the stage in Prufrockian fashion. He has been an “attendant lord” and started a scene or two.
He has been “an easy tool,” deferential and glad to be of use.
Even if he is awarded the hollow title of honorary KMT chairman, should we shed tears for him or acknowledge the simple, inevitable slap in his face?
Jerome Keating is a writer based in Taipei.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
After “Operation Absolute Resolve” to capture former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the US joined Israel on Saturday last week in launching “Operation Epic Fury” to remove Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime leadership team. The two blitzes are widely believed to be a prelude to US President Donald Trump changing the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific region, targeting China’s rise. In the National Security Strategic report released in December last year, the Trump administration made it clear that the US would focus on “restoring American pre-eminence in the Western hemisphere,” and “competing with China economically and militarily
RSS