Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy.
Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point.
However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his and the KMT’s dialogue with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
For a political party, consistency and unity are crucial. The KMT has problems with both and the “1992 consensus” is a major source of conflict. This was thrown into high relief a week ago with the controversy over the KMT delegation to the Straits Forum in China that opens on Saturday.
The forum is an annual exchange that began in 2009, the second year of Ma’s first term, a time when the KMT had a stronger claim to being representative of Taiwan than it does in its current role as opposition party.
Former legislative speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) was slated to lead this year’s delegation, but his trip was shelved after a China Central Television program hosted by Li Hong (李紅) suggested on Thursday last week that Wang was traveling to China to “sue for peace.”
KMT Chairman Johnny Chiang (江啟臣), affronted by the suggestion that the KMT would be participating as an inferior rival desperate to avoid inevitable defeat at the hands of the mighty CCP, canceled the delegation visit, but stopped short of prohibiting KMT members from attending as private citizens.
The KMT’s decision should be lauded, even if it stopped short of a complete ban. However, that it intended to go in the first place stems from its insistence on kowtowing to the CCP and adhering to the “1992 consensus,” even if there is little loyalty to the idea in Taiwan beyond Ma, his supporters and certain members of the KMT old guard.
Kowtowing is rarely done from a position of strength or equality. Going to a forum predicated on the “1992 consensus” is the act of a weaker party seeking favor from a stronger rival, even if “suing for peace” is jumping the gun.
At every major election since Ma left office, leading KMT figures have called for party unity. This is precisely because the party is so fragmented. The KMT desperately needs both unity and consistency of message — a new message. Calls for reform from within the party are strong, and the electorate has long called for the party to change direction.
Consistency only bolsters strength when there is internal agreement. The more Ma and the old guard insist on holding onto the “1992 consensus” in the interest of consistency, the more this very consistency becomes an obstacle to unity — and it could ultimately tear the party apart.
It is not that a significant break from tradition has never happened in the KMT. Ironically, Ma was at the forefront of one such a change of tack. There is little consistency between the stance on China during the time of former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son, Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) — when they wanted to have nothing to do with the communist “bandits” — and the open engagement with the CCP championed by Ma and former vice president Lien Chan (連戰).
That adjustment was made to address changing political realities. It is perhaps now time for the party to change again, to better reflect today’s reality.
In a Facebook post on Wednesday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) wrote: “The KMT must fall for Taiwan to improve.’ Allow me to ask the question again: Is this really true?” It matters not how many times Hsu asks the question, my answer will always be the same: “Yes, the KMT must be toppled for Taiwan to improve.” In the lengthy Facebook post, titled “What were those born in the 1980s guilty of?” Hsu harked back to the idealistic aspirations of the 2014 Sunflower movement before heaping opprobrium on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP)
The scuffle between Chinese embassy staffers in Fiji and a Taiwanese diplomat at a Republic of China (ROC) Double Ten National Day celebration has turned into a public relations opportunity for the government, Beijing and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Although the incident occurred on Oct. 8, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) downplayed it, only for the story to be picked up by the foreign media, forcing the ministry to respond. The public and opposition parties asked why the government had failed to remonstrate more strongly in the first instance. It is still unclear whether the ministry missed a trick
US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, former US vice president Joe Biden, are holding their final debate tonight. In their foreign policy debate, China is sure to be a major issue of contention for the two candidates. Here are several questions the moderator should pose to the candidates: For both: In the first televised US presidential debates in 1960, then-Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy and his Republican counterpart, Richard Nixon, were asked whether the US should intervene if communist China attacked Taiwan’s outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu. Kennedy said no, unless the main island of Taiwan was also attacked.
For most of us, the colorful, otherworldly marinescapes of coral reefs are as remote as the alien landscapes of the moon. We rarely, if ever, experience these underwater wonderlands for ourselves — we are, after all, air-breathing, terrestrial creatures mostly cocooned in cities. It is easy not to notice the perilous state they are in: We have lost 50 percent of coral reefs in the past 20 years and more than 90 percent are expected to die by 2050, a presentation at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Diego, California, earlier this year showed. As the oceans heat further and