The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) took its campaign against the Ill-gotten Party Assets Settlement Committee international this week, telling foreign media that the asset issue should be handled by the nation’s judicial system, not the committee, and complaining of a government vendetta against it.
However, KMT Vice Chairman Jason Hu’s (胡志強) performance at the news conference was about as likely to convince the foreign media of the validity of the party’s grievances as that of other KMT officials with the average Taiwanese.
While the former Taichung mayor said that the KMT’s assets might have been “improperly or inappropriately acquired,” he reiterated the absurd claim, first raised in March, that the gold reserves the KMT government moved from China to Taiwan “were primarily considered a party asset,” along with “treasures in the National Palace Museum,” and that the KMT had given “some of its assets to the state.”
The KMT’s love-hate relationship with historical facts reached a new low with that rapacious assertion, which KMT Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) has been repeating at regular intervals this year in the hope that someone will think it is true.
As basis for that claim, Hung in August said that Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) made the decision to move museum artifacts and gold to Taiwan as chairman of the KMT, and not as the president of the ROC.
Chiang was KMT director-general at the time, and he also held the post of ROC president from May 20, 1948 to Jan. 21, 1949, and according to Chen Chin-chang’s (陳錦昌) book Chiang Kai-shek’s Retreat to Taiwan, the official decision to transport artifacts from the museum — along with the National Central Library and Academia Sinica’s Institute of History and Philology — was made on Nov. 10, 1948.
Twenty days later, Chiang issued the order to secretly move gold from the Central Bank of China to Taiwan, a story also recounted in The Archives of Gold by Wu Sing-yung (吳興鏞), whose father, lieutenant general Wu Song-ching (吳嵩慶), had been entrusted to carry out the order.
So the million taels of gold and silver and foreign currency reserves moved to Taiwan came not from the KMT’s coffers, but the central bank. Whether Chiang was wearing his KMT hat or his president’s cap, the central bank was not the KMT’s or Chiang’s personal piggy bank, nor were China’s foreign reserves or the crates of palace museum riches the KMT’s.
Despite Hung’s rationale, neither she nor the KMT is making a similar claim to the items transferred from the National Central Library and the institute — or the Beijing Library, which was added to the evacuation effort along with the National Central Museum — which undercuts her defense.
It is past time to shut such absurd claims down. Then-National Palace Museum director Feng Ming-chu (馮明珠) made a rather weak effort in March, when she told lawmakers that the museum’s collection belonged to the ROC and that all of its artifacts had been registered with the Ministry of Finance.
She ignored the principle of the case against the KMT: Just because the KMT ran a party-state government in China and then in Taiwan does not make everything that belonged to the ROC government in China — or Taiwan — the property of the KMT.
As for Hu’s call for the judiciary to handle the KMT’s assets issue, perhaps the KMT should not be counting on help from that quarter, since on Friday last week, the Taipei High Administrative Court rejected a petition by the KMT to suspend the committee’s decision that Central Investment Co and Hsinyutai Co are KMT affiliates and therefore the party’s ill-gotten assets.
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS