By their very nature, the old, established political parties tend to be narrow and conservative in their approach. This has been the case for the two most recent Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) governments — the present administration under President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and the previous one under former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝).
In the way they dealt with the student-led Sunflower movement, and the political moves taken after the protests had run their course, Ma and his sidekick Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) both acted as if they were settling scores with the enemy. Lee, for his part, used the Wild Lily student movement of the 1990s to secure his own ends, and then left them by the wayside after they had served their purpose. The KMT has consistently resisted social or political change.
The Sunflower movement, keenly aware of the risk to the constitutional system posed by the actions of the legislature, called upon the government to convene a public conference on constitutional government.
The response by Ma and Jiang was not only unreasonable, the two men also, incredibly, decided instead to call a national affairs conference on trade and economics. Fully aware that the opposition supported holding a public constitutional conference, they also disingenuously invited the opposition parties to participate in their own conference.
The result was that both the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Taiwan Solidarity Union refused to take part. Even the pan-blue People First Party declined to attend. In the end, only supporters of the Ma and Jiang administration attended the conference, so it was unlikely to succeed.
When the Wild Lily movement called on Lee’s administration to call a national affairs conference to discuss the issue of direct elections for president and vice-president, Lee agreed to the conference, but failed to invite the students from the movement to participate: Indeed, the government actually invited students who were not part of the movement to attend, to make up the numbers. The conference was fixed, anyway, the results a foregone conclusion decided by the KMT in advance so it would get what it wanted. It effectively rejected all the recommendations of the students representing the movement or reform-minded academics.
Even before the conference was held, it was clear to many that it would not result in any significant reforms. Freedom advocates such as political scientist Hu Fu (胡佛), constitutional expert Lee Hung-hsi (李鴻禧) and Academia Sinica research fellows Yang Kuo-shu (楊國樞) and Chu Yun-han (朱雲漢) pulled out before it was even held. Consequently, the conference descended into a negotiation between the two major parties, the KMT and the DPP, and any talk of fundamental constitutional reform was abandoned.
Just as 24 years ago the government responded in an unreasonable way to the Wild Lily movement, Ma and Jiang responded to the Sunflower movement by repeatedly criticizing the participants, and have attempted to throw the book at them. Not only did Ma and Jiang fail to fully appreciate the significance of the student movement or understand the reforms they were calling for, they even declared that they would form a youth advisory group.
This kind of clumsy bumbling was met with derision by the younger generation. In fact, the KMT actually set up a youth group during Ma’s first term as party chairman, with former Cabinet secretary-general Lin Yi-shih (林益世) initially at the helm.
The KMT has always been interested only in controlling the youth. It will never listen to young people’s opinions, or their concerns for the future.
Chiu Hei-yuan is a retired professor and a member of the Taipei Society.
Translated by Paul Cooper
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then