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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers