From 1949 to 1987, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) imposed 38 years of martial law in the name of resisting the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) after it fled to Taiwan, as it claimed to represent the Republic of China (ROC).
In 2000, the KMT lost the presidency after then-KMT vice chairman Lien Chan (連戰) competed against James Soong (宋楚瑜), who left the party to run as an independent candidate. Following this defeat, the KMT gradually shifted onto the pro-CCP path.
It is contradictory to change from being anti-CCP to pro-CCP. What was the reason for the party’s change in stance? In 2004, Lien and Soong ran on the same ticket, but after losing for the second time in a presidential election, the KMT thought it would never rule again.
However, in 2008, Taiwanese were fooled by Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who won the presidency for the KMT and called himself a “new Taiwanese.” In 2012, they were fooled again. Nevertheless, Ma put an end to the party’s presidential bids.
After former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) concluded her second term last year, the KMT thought it would be its turn to govern. It nominated New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜), a so-called “Taiwanese,” to run in last year’s presidential election, while seeking in vain for support from then-Taiwan People’s Party chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲). Since the KMT lost the election, it has been haunted by its pro-CCP ideology. However, how could an anti-CCP party become pro-CCP? There could be several reasons.
First, it is just lip service. Their actions are just because they want to monopolize the power to rule.
Second, abandoning Taiwan and courting China demonstrates the logic of power, as the KMT and the CCP are Chinese parties.
Third, resisting the CCP was the business of former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國). What is the point now that they have both passed away?
Fourth, as the People’s Republic of China became the legitimate China, when would be the best time, if not now, to remedy its mistakes by making contributions?
Fifth, the KMT and the CCP are basically two birds of a feather.
Sixth, the KMT is obsessed with authoritarianism.
Seventh, it is just the same as the ailing dynasties in Chinese history.
Politicians once known for being patriotic and anti-CCP are the first to side with China. The ROC ruled in China for 38 years and in Taiwan for 76 years. Despite spending twice as much time in Taiwan as in China, the KMT still politically identifies with China. As the party has lost its legitimacy, it could only side with the legitimate China.
This demonstrates the logic of the legitimacy of a regime in traditional Chinese culture, as well as the opportunistic mindset of the KMT. A bunch of anti-CCP patriots have now switched sides and embraced the CCP.
These pseudo-patriots served in important positions during Chiang Kai-shek’s rule. Activists who published the Free China Journal (自由中國), such as Lei Chen (雷震), Yin Hai-kuang (殷海光) and Fu Cheng (傅正) — the real patriots, were imprisoned and punished. Democratic pioneer Peng Ming-min (彭明敏) was also persecuted for speaking the truth.
Time and time again, good people are persecuted, while nasty people get what they want. This is the reality of Chinese history.
The KMT could not be reborn with the ROC in Taiwan. It could not overcome the remnants of its fictional Chineseness and otherness to transform into a normal political party suited to an emerging democratic country. It could not allow new Taiwanese who migrated to this country in 1949 and identify with it to become the master of the emerging nation. There is a cultural pathology behind it.
Those who were superficially loyal to the KMT and patriotic are politicians who frequently shift their stances in a bid to please those in power. They are evil and vile.
Lee Min-yung is a poet.
Translated by Fion Khan
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