In protest of President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) nomination of former Presidential Office secretary-general Chen Chu (陳菊) as Control Yuan president, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators late last month occupied the legislative chamber on the eve of an extraordinary session. The protest was seen as the party’s attempt to pull itself back together after having lost its direction in the campaign for this year’s presidential election.
Despite the KMT caucus’ claim that the protest would last for three days and three nights, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators broke into the legislative chamber within 24 hours, mocking the KMT for not being able to protest without air conditioning. Even some pro-blue camp political commentators criticized the attempt.
Strategically, the occupation was important. The KMT hoped to use this protest over the Dragon Boat Festival holiday to reverse its unfavorable situation, while KMT Chairman Johnny Chiang (江啟臣) used his legislative role to supervise the scene, as he wanted to use this key event to establish his authority.
The KMT should have emphasized that as Tsai has pledged to downsize the nation’s five-branch system to a three-branch system by abolishing the Examination Yuan and the Control Yuan through a constitutional amendment, it is unnecessary to nominate a Control Yuan president or members, or at the very least it is unnecessary to fill all its vacancies.
The party should have also urged the DPP to allow its lawmakers to vote on the nomination freely without exercising party discipline, and it should have suggested that Tsai replace Chen with lawyer Yu Mei-nu (尤美女).
Unfortunately, not only did the KMT not sense the strategic significance of the protest and hold on to the end, it also lost its power to manipulate the political agenda. Why then should Taiwanese care about the party’s survival?
Chiang is the first KMT chairman after former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) who is friendly to the US and Japan as well as vigilant against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), so he is unlikely to curry favor with Beijing.
Taiwan completed its autonomy in several stages: direct presidential elections, three government transitions, and the KMT’s transformation into a Taiwan-focused party upholding universal values, a key indicator of Taiwan’s democratic consolidation.
Once Taiwan’s major political parties become Taiwan-centered, any elected president would be pro-Taiwan and voters could stop worrying about a five-star flag flying over the Presidential Office Building.
A friend recalled many years ago how a leader of the KMT’s pro-Taiwan camp lobbied then-president and party chairman Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) to lift a ban on new political parties. He pointed out that if Taiwan had no other parties than the KMT, Taiwanese would turn to the CCP.
However, if other pro-local parties were available, they could then replace the KMT if it lost public support.
This is the logic that protects Taiwan and does not promote party interests.
Asian governments often end up with one-party rule, like the CCP, or a dominant party, such as Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party. The former inevitably leads to corruption, and the latter loses vitality.
Although the DPP has regained power, the worry is that the lack of a challenge from a strong political rival would cause the dominant party to decline year by year, and voters would pay the price.
At this critical moment of the KMT’s transformation, perhaps those who truly care about protecting the nation should encourage the party to focus harder on Taiwan.
HoonTing is a political commentator.
Translated by Eddy Chang
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS