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
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS