Following its landslide election defeats, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has repeatedly vowed to instigate reforms to regain public trust, but judging from the caucus’ performance in the new legislature, it might still have a long way to go before embracing genuine reform.
Both President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and New Taipei City Mayor Eric Chu (朱立倫) promised to address the issue of the KMT’s ill-gotten party assets when they were party chairmen, but when the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus proposed a draft bill on illegitimate party assets, the KMT caucus refused to agree to refer the draft for review, with KMT caucus whip Lai Shyh-bao (賴士葆) saying that the term “illegitimate” was too provocative.
Lai added that, instead of passing a special law on “illegitimate party assets,” a section in the draft political party act dealing with party assets would suffice.
Lai’s remarks show that the KMT is still refusing to admit its mistakes, and without recognizing past wrongs, a political party can never genuinely reform.
The term “illegitimate assets” refers to KMT assets obtained through controversial means when it took control of Taiwan following Japan’s surrender after World War II.
When Japanese colonial government officials and settlers left Taiwan in 1945, they left large amounts of cash and property.
When the Republic of China (ROC) government took over, properties belonging to the former colonial government should have become ROC government assets, while private properties should have been handled according to the will of former owners — but, the KMT claimed many former Japanese government or private properties as party assets.
For instance, the majority of the KMT’s local chapter offices occupy buildings that were originally government buildings during the Japanese colonial period, saving the party millions — if not more — of NT dollars that would otherwise have been be spent to rent or purchase properties.
When real-estate prices increased or when the KMT was questioned over having illegitimately obtained the properties used as local chapter offices, the party sold off the properties.
One of the best-known examples was the former site of the KMT central headquarters in central Taipei, opposite the Presidential Office Building.
The site was formerly the headquarters of the Japanese Red Cross Society, and after Japan’s surrender, the KMT government took over the building as its headquarters.
Regardless of opposition, the KMT demolished the original historical building and erected a high-rise on the site; and when the public questioned the legitimacy of the KMT’s use of the property, then-KMT chairman Ma responded to criticism by selling the building to the Chang Jung-fa Foundation.
The originally KMT-run radio station Broadcasting Corp of China also took over a public radio building abandoned by Japanese.
Much of the KMT’s assets are illegitimate, not only because of how the party obtained former Japanese colonial government properties, but also because the ROC government once allocated funding to the KMT directly, and the ROC government also directly transferred aid from the US during the Cold War into the KMT’s accounts.
If the KMT is determined to carry out reforms, it should admit that it obtained party assets illegitimately and support the bill.
It is not really “provocative,” because the DPP bill targets only the KMT’s ill-gotten assets, not everything that the party owns, unless the KMT believes that it has nothing left except those ill-gotten assets.
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
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
RSS