In a speech on Oct. 23, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Johnny Chiang (江啟臣) expressed the hope that the celebration of Retrocession Day would allow people to discuss and review the relationship between the Republic of China (ROC) and Taiwan, adding that the continued existence of the ROC is the only way to curb Taiwanese independence.
It is pretty obvious that all the talk about discussing and reviewing the relationship is just a smokescreen, and that the KMT’s main focus is to curb Taiwanese independence and safeguard the ROC.
This is made even clearer by the fact that ever since KMT caucus whip Lin Wei-chou’s (林為洲) proposal that the word “Chinese” be removed from the party’s name met with strong internal opposition, Chiang has been at pains to distance himself from it.
A Taiwan Thinktank survey released on Sept. 24 regarding the push for normalization of the nation’s status showed that when asked about their national identity and to choose between Taiwanese or Chinese, up to 86 percent identified as Taiwanese.
Another survey released last month showed that if China were to invade Taiwan, 77.6 percent of respondents said they would be willing to fight for Taiwan.
Taiwan Thinktank deputy executive-general Doong Sy-chi (董思齊) said that three transitions of power have shaped people’s national identity, and a public consensus has gradually formed behind the Taiwanese identity.
KMT politicians are also well aware of the process leading to the formation of this Taiwanese identity, but they stubbornly cling onto the Chinese mindset that “one would rather lose one’s property to an outsider than one’s own servant.”
Their practice of shortening the “Republic of China” to “China” has created a natural connection to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) view that Taiwan is part of China.
Of course the ROC’s dependence on Taiwan has created division and opposition between the two.
Unfortunately, the KMT’s insistence on the ROC’s existence has led to a political farce and constant conflict between the pan-blue and pan-green camps. The problem has divided our nation, land and people, while distorting our education system and character, making it difficult for teachers to explain to the next generation what our nation is and where it is located.
Since the nation has been separated from the land and its people, this abnormal ideology has made it very difficult to shape our own culture and that is why spiritually, many Taiwanese either display a “colonial mentality” or a “refugee culture.” This is the real tragedy of Taiwanese.
How will the KMT define Taiwan?
Chiang recently asked some young people: “What do we think? What will we do? What future direction do we want for our nation and society?”
The way he set it up, it sounded as if he were going to make a significant declaration, but the answer he gave was simply this: “We want Taiwanese independence supporters to go to President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and ROC supporters to come to us.”
It was dumbfounding.
The KMT has been lying ever since its came to Taiwan. Following former KMT chairman Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) lie about the so-called “1992 consensus” and “one China, with each side having its own interpretation,” Chiang has now proposed the KMT’s future direction for Taiwan.
What is he playing at? Is he really going to try to eliminate Taiwanese independence and continue to deceive Taiwanese?
Chen Ching-kuen is an assistant professor.
Translated by Eddy Chang
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Saturday is the day of the first batch of recall votes primarily targeting lawmakers of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The scale of the recall drive far outstrips the expectations from when the idea was mooted in January by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘). The mass recall effort is reminiscent of the Sunflower movement protests against the then-KMT government’s non-transparent attempts to push through a controversial cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014. That movement, initiated by students, civic groups and non-governmental organizations, included student-led protesters occupying the main legislative chamber for three weeks. The two movements are linked
RSS