Last week, the Broadcasting Corporation of China (BCC), which is owned by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), held a board meeting, passing a resolution to prepare a reduction of capital and the sale of two buildings owned by the company. The company is also planning to hold an extra shareholders’ meeting early next month to decide whether to reduce capital by spinning off part of the company’s assets to a newly established asset management company or through a share buyback.
That they are taking this action at a time when a new government looks set to be voted in next year is causing a lot of bad sentiment among the public, especially as President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration has brought the return of the KMT’s ill-gotten assets to a standstill over the past eight years, while the KMT continues to receive huge stock dividends every year.
This point alone is enough to draw the conclusion that no one should vote for any of the KMT’s candidates in next year’s legislative election.
Why flatly reject a whole group of people in this manner? Explaining that requires more details, so here goes. The KMT’s assets are a cancer on political reform, and there is not a single KMT member who does not know that when then-vice president Lien Chan (連戰) ran for president in 2000, he began to promote the idea of placing party assets in trust. Fifteen years later, the party has worked its way through a host of chairmen, all of whom have expressed their determination to carry out sweeping reform, but in the end, they have all lied and deceived the public because they find it impossible to forgo all their benefits. The one making the most fuss about being clean and uncorrupted has even been the deepest implicated in murky rumors about party assets during his term. Such nasty business is not something that one person can pull off on his or her own, it requires the protection of a legislative majority and this is the reason for the generalization that everyone is a crook and open to public criticism.
To avoid complicating things, look at the lowest common denominator, the legislation of a party act. Over the past few years, every party has submitted their own version of a party act, and the fourth chapter of the Cabinet version, dealing with political party finances — articles 19 to 24 of the draft — clearly regulates a party’s financial sources, accounting system, reporting and publication of assets and financial statements as well as party subsidies and bans on operating or investing in for-profit enterprises and buying real estate. However, this draft continues to languish in the legislature, and as soon as it is mentioned, the KMT legislative majority sends it back and refuses to allow any kind of discussion about the act. The KMT’s assets clearly include state assets, and the party refuses to return what it has stolen, even when it has been discovered. Calling them thieves is polite; they are bandits.
Things are complicated because although the assets are stolen goods, they are not called by their proper name. This can create gray areas that certain people take advantage of, and one result is that things seem unreasonable. The BCC, for example, is preparing to rid itself of its buildings on Songjiang Road and Linsen Road in Taipei. These buildings are both located in convenient areas of the city, but — in violation of the market situation — their estimated prices remain at the same level as they were 16 years ago, or lower. It would not be very strange if this were to raise all sorts of conjecture. Although former New Party lawmaker Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康) holds the title of BCC chairman, the KMT has, in practice, given him a broadcasting license while holding onto the company’s assets. However, the spinoff still has not been approved by the National Communications Commission, which is why the company is now trying again.
There are other controversial cases similar to the BCC case, both clumsily handled, and it is easy to see that there are even bigger assets hidden in the KMT’s black box. People can only wonder whether KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) and KMT-affiliated Central Investment Co chairman Gordon Chen (陳樹), a self-proclaimed accounting and financial expert, have been able to access. Chu, who has said that he would resolve the party asset issue before the end of last month, refuses to respond to criticism, raising suspicions that not everything has been revealed and that the party asset issue is a substantial affair.
Taiwan has enjoyed democracy for 20 years, but not a single KMT chairman has been able to reject the temptation of party assets. This should tell people that systems and institutions are more important than individuals, and that such a system must be established by people who are not affected by conflicts of interest. This is why, if the party act is to be discussed openly, the number of KMT legislators must be brought down to as low a number as possible, while those working for the elimination of party assets and to stop political parties from operating businesses must win as high a number of seats as possible in the next legislature. If this does not happen, it would not be possible to remove the obstacle blocking the development of a clean and ethical legislature.
Every political party that has announced its participation in next year’s legislative elections must regroup and make their views heard. The People First Party, for example, has wavered on this issue in the past and it must offer an explanation to enable voters to make an informed decision as they consider how to vote. KMT supporters must also decide if they want a few people to continue to do as they please and get their hands on as much money as they can while the majority have to shoulder responsibility for all the corruption and “black gold.” If they do not, how can the KMT ever be able to rid itself of its image as a party of thieves and be born again as a new party?
Translated by Perry Svensson
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
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
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
RSS