New way forward for KMT?
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Johnny Chiang (江啟臣) was elected party chairman on Saturday last week. In the past, Chinese presidents — in their capacity as chairman of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) — would send a congratulatory telegram to a newly elected KMT counterpart. Not this time.
Chiang simply said that whether he received a congratulatory telegram from Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) would not affect his push for reform, and that his election could add some new ideas not only to Taiwanese society, but also to the Chinese side.
Chiang should continue in this spirit to completely discard the KMT’s “pro-China” label, and to resolve the boycott by the party’s cross-strait “comprador” faction.
If he succeeds in doing this, given the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) burden of incumbency, the human nature of liking the new, and the possibility of a “pendulum effect,” it would not be impossible for the KMT to regain power in the 2024 presidential election.
Xi’s decision to not send a congratulatory telegram actually allows the KMT chairman to enjoy greater mainstream support, and thus greater room to maneuver.
The policy presentation of the KMT chairmanship by-election is still fresh in people’s minds: Chiang argued that the so-called “1992 consensus” is “a bit outdated,” and that young people do not necessarily recognize the consensus.
He then proposed that the KMT respect Taiwan’s democracy, and try to obtain the public’s authorization before making any adjustment to cross-strait relations. Well said.
The “1992 consensus” has never included “each side having its own interpretation,” something Xi made clear at the beginning of the year. Fortunately the KMT membership elected Chiang as their new chairman, who spoke his mind frankly and without making any “unwise” remarks after being elected.
This is different from the party’s older generation who always curry favor and seek rewards from Beijing, deceiving themselves by upholding the idea of “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” in hopes of scoring political gains.
They are no longer able to fool the public and should step down.
Liu Fu-hua
Taoyuan
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS