The recall wave is showing diametric opposites: Recalls against Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers were launched by civic groups and the majority of them are organized by young people outside a party apparatus. That starkly contrasts with the “activists” in the KMT attempting to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers; the recall organizers are KMT members, most of whom belong to the party’s Youth League. The KMT ought to think clearly about this: Why is it that bonafide civic groups are more than willing to bear the burden of running these campaigns and show moral courage? Why does the KMT need to rely on younger members to halt recalls against it or to run counter-recall campaigns against the DPP?
Why did civic groups stand up in the first place? With KMT caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) leading a group of 16 KMT-affiliated legislators on a trip to Beijing in February last year to meet with high-level Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials, including Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Wang Huning (王滬寧), the KMT is beyond absurd. Former National Security Council secretary-general King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) had the foresight to say Fu is like a parasite.
Why do KMT Youth League members need to launch recall campaigns against the DPP? That is because they have to bear the party’s will. Some of them might be laying the groundwork for a run for public office, and that is their first test to prove themselves. Yet their party is in decline and the public can see through their tricks. One young person identifying with the KMT even flirted with the specter of Nazism and received international condemnation.
Civic groups have set up stalls to gather signatures, exercising their public civic rights every step of the way, and the results speak for themselves.
Meanwhile, the KMT’s and its affiliates’ opposition to the recalls resemble retribution. Their forging of signatures and use of deceased party members’ IDs, as well as the astonishing degree of voter dissatisfaction, have led to accusations of doctored documents and contravention of the Personal Data Protection Act (個人資料保護法).
Civic groups are standing up, sweeping away outdated notions of young Taiwanese’s indifference to politics. The youth are a new social force and their participation shows that younger members of the public are shouldering responsibility as the nation’s new main actors. To a certain extent, that is changing Taiwan’s political direction. It not only severely impacts the KMT, but also serves as a warning for the DPP.
The KMT Youth League allegedly submitted recall signature documents that contained signatures of deceased voters and are being prosecuted in accordance with the law, yet they have countered by criticizing the judiciary, saying that the courts are only targeting the KMT. The party’s legislators facing recalls have even hurled abuse at President William Lai (賴清德). Do they realize he has nothing to do with the recalls? Why are they calling him a dictator?
Who else has headed Taiwan as a dictator apart from former leaders Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國)? Are there still any social conditions that would allow for the re-emergence of a dictatorship? The KMT has morphed from a party that detests the CCP into one that panders to it. If the recalls fail, the KMT would feel emboldened to attempt overturning our nation’s executive branch and stifle further recalls against their party. It is seeking chaos by calling for the toppling of the Cabinet and for the president to resign.
Someone ought to tap their heads and see if anyone is home. They are simply shameless.
Lee Min-yung is a poet.
Translated by Tim Smith
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