Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party?
While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold and recall votes are likely to be held next month and in August. The massive public discontent could lead to the KMT losing its majority in the legislature.
Chu likened “Operation Patriot” to a “Patriot” missile, saying “it aims to protect the country.” In reality, it is just an attempt to “protect KMT legislators,” with the party hoping to summon its supporters to help its lawmakers hold onto their seats. “Operation Patriot” comprises three steps: establishing local strategies in every jurisdiction, led by KMT mayors and commissioners; promoting regional mobilization by organizing a team of speakers, including Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) and KMT media personality Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), for cross-district reinforcement; and holding a national rally before the recall votes.
The recall motions against KMT lawmakers stem from public dissatisfaction with controversial legislation passed by the opposition-controlled legislature, such as unconstitutionally expanding the legislature’s power, cutting the national defense budget and blocking proposals to tighten national security. Some civic groups also call the massive recall campaign as a “battle against pro-China lawmakers who seek to sell out Taiwan.”
Garnering public support for its “patriots” is a huge challenge for the KMT, especially after visits this year to China by senior party leaders, including former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), and deputy chairmen Sean Lien (連勝文) and Andrew Hsia (夏立言), where they echoed Beijing’s “one China” principle. Those trips could give voters further impetus to recall pro-China legislators.
Chu’s “Operation Patriot” has also triggered doubts and mixed interpretations within the party. Media reports said that Chu unilaterally made the decision without consulting party dignitaries or local officials. His action was widely seen as an attempt to disperse the recall pressure and accountability of party leaders, and to further solidify his power amid a fight for the top post ahead of the KMT chairperson election in September.
Furthermore, Chu on Tuesday turned down President William Lai’s (賴清德) first-ever invitation to a national security affairs briefing for opposition leaders — despite his party repeatedly calling for the administration to hold dialogue with the opposition. His decision has made the KMT a follower of the smaller Taiwan People’s Party, which has consistently refused to communicate with the administration and had insisted on a live broadcast of the briefing, which would be national security risk.
The KMT’s and the TPP’s refusals are not only contrary to international practices of holding cross-party, closed-door security meetings to protect classified information, but also showed that they are only interested in political wrangling and prioritizing party interests over national security and interests.
With the recall votes likely starting next month, “real patriots” should be able to see past the opposition’s rhetoric and make the right choices to safeguard the nation.
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