The fact that the tacit dichotomy of “local” and “nonlocal” continues to dominate the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) internal election campaign, despite the efforts of some to rise above it, shows that the party is far from done with the issue.
Former KMT vice chairman Steve Chan (詹啟賢) on Tuesday said that pitting chairmanship candidates against each other on the basis of their “local versus nonlocal” backgrounds would ruin the party.
He further claimed that “local” is a vague term with no clear definition and that the KMT has been “diverse and inclusive” throughout its more than 60 years of history in Taiwan.
Only when “some” deliberately drove a wedge between local and waishengren — people and their descendents who fled to Taiwan after the KMT’s defeat in the Chinese Civil War in 1949 — camps did the issue become politically salient and divisive, he said.
Chan’s comments could be answered in two ways: That idea is a nonstarter for the new generation of voters and the historical context for the KMT being a seemingly “inclusive” party in Taiwan was omitted, as it has always been, in this canonical recital of the KMT being a tolerant regime.
If Chan were to take a good look at recent elections, especially those after the 2014 Sunflower movement — which galvanized young Taiwanese to pay close attention to and participate in social and political activities — he would see that the local-waishengren divide has long faded from the political rhetoric outside of the KMT.
What the KMT should debate — which is also newer voters’ political concern — is how the party defines Taiwan’s relationship with China. Taiwan-China is the new binary opposition that needs to be addressed, and while it did emerge in the last KMT chairperson election, it unfortunately quickly waned afterward.
Chan was at least right about one thing, which is that “local” should now be used to describe everyone who lives in and cares about Taiwan. This idea would resonate with the young, but for millennials it is what has already been embedded and embodied in their lives, rather than some ideal approach. In other words, talk about overcoming a division is evidence that the division — which has already been left behind by young voters — still bothers the KMT, demonstrating that it is out of sync with society.
The difference in attitudes is actually more intergenerational than along party lines. However, the KMT, more than any other major party, has continued to be plagued by the dichotomy, to the extent that it could shake the party to its core. However, is it true that the division was not a matter of concern until some maliciously incited it for their own political ends?
Saying the KMT has been diverse and inclusive is probably as true as Beijing claiming that all ethnic groups in China coexist peacefully and happily under Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rule and identify with zhonghua minzu (中華民族, Chinese ethnic group). Saying that the division only became salient after “certain people” incited it in Taiwan is similar to Beijing claiming that minority groups divided China by promoting their own cultures.
The CCP has plenty of cadres and officials with minority backgrounds, just as the KMT incorporated local officials after it arrived in Taiwan. The 228 Massacre in 1947 and the KMT’s defeat in the Chinese Civil War and retreat to Taiwan made it realize that its own survival would be at risk if it were to be overthrown in Taiwan. As some academics have said, the KMT regime was a “colonial regime without a mother country.”
Aligning with and encouraging opposing local factions — a practice that has continued to bedevil Taiwanese politics to this day — was a way for the KMT regime to keep a tight rein on the nation and it only has itself to blame for today’s infighting.
On March 22, 2023, at the close of their meeting in Moscow, media microphones were allowed to record Chinese Communist Party (CCP) dictator Xi Jinping (習近平) telling Russia’s dictator Vladimir Putin, “Right now there are changes — the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years — and we are the ones driving these changes together.” Widely read as Xi’s oath to create a China-Russia-dominated world order, it can be considered a high point for the China-Russia-Iran-North Korea (CRINK) informal alliance, which also included the dictatorships of Venezuela and Cuba. China enables and assists Russia’s war against Ukraine and North Korea’s
After thousands of Taiwanese fans poured into the Tokyo Dome to cheer for Taiwan’s national team in the World Baseball Classic’s (WBC) Pool C games, an image of food and drink waste left at the stadium said to have been left by Taiwanese fans began spreading on social media. The image sparked wide debate, only later to be revealed as an artificially generated image. The image caption claimed that “Taiwanese left trash everywhere after watching the game in Tokyo Dome,” and said that one of the “three bad habits” of Taiwanese is littering. However, a reporter from a Japanese media outlet
An article published in the Dec. 12, 1949, edition of the Central Daily News (中央日報) bore a headline with the intimidating phrase: “You Cannot Escape.” The article was about the execution of seven “communist spies,” some say on the basis of forced confessions, at the end of the 713 Penghu Incident. Those were different times, born of political paranoia shortly after the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) relocated to Taiwan following defeat in China by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The phrase was a warning by the KMT regime to the local populace not to challenge its power or threaten national unity. The
Since taking office, President William Lai (賴清德) has been an active proponent of the Healthy Taiwan initiative. As a member of the Healthy Taiwan Promotion Committee, I have also contributed recommendations on various pharmaceutical policies. After the committee concluded its seventh meeting on Saturday last week, Lai announced that the government is considering a three-year suspension on the Drug Expenditure Target (DET) system’s routine drug price surveys, highlighting the need to further support drug supply resilience. While I am supportive of this policy direction, I must also stress the importance of maintaining our original objective of improving the quality of
RSS