The calls for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to return its stolen assets to the public have accelerated over the course of the nation's democratization. The KMT knows the party's position is indefensible, so former chairman Lien Chan (連戰) publicly promised to return the assets when he ran for the presidency in 2000, and Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) promised to do the same when he ran for the party's chairmanship last year.
However, six years have already passed, and while selling off a few pieces of real estate, the party has failed to return either the assets or money earned from the limited number of sales. This begs the question: Does the KMT really intend to return the fruits of 50 years of authoritarian rule?
In response to Premier Su Tseng-chang's (
This sounds pretty impressive but is actually irresponsible, as the division of assets into the three categories is based only on the party's own "conscience."
However, according to the KMT's own logic, most of its assets were obtained legally. The party can do whatever it likes and sell to whomever it wants, and everyone else should keep out of what is essentially "private" business. In other words, the KMT is already doing plenty by offering up a few crumbs from the vast banquet that is the party's holdings.
The problem is that what was "legal" during Taiwan's authoritarian era may be illegal under the standards of today's democracy. What people really want to see is the KMT actively dealing with the gray area in which the bulk of its assets fall and declaring war on its past.
Worse, it has accelerated the dispossession of its assets in recent years to make it harder for the government to repossess them. This highlights its dual strategy of calling for reform on the one hand, and working to make a profit for itself on the other.
In fact, the Taiwanese people have always been tolerant and lenient toward the KMT. It is widely known that the party's massive assets are questionable, but most of us do not ask for "a day of reckoning" and a final liquidation of assets because, to a certain degree, we all understand the historical background in which the assets were accumulated. Not to mention that taking a stand might intensify political confrontation, and the social cost of that would be large.
Still, the KMT should not take this as an excuse to remain passive. If the party does not clarify the facts about its party assets to the public, it will be like a thief who has to live forever with a guilty conscience. Political rivals will be able to make a big thing of the issue at any time. Does the KMT want to be haunted like this forever?
Few expect the KMT to return its ill-gotten assets to the government. Besides, a lot of the property has already been sold. But at the very least, the KMT should have returned its highly symbolic and controversial former headquarters to the government to show its determination to reform. Unfortunately, the building has already been sold.
After becoming an opposition party, the KMT likes to apply high moral standards to its examination of the Democratic Progressive Party, saying that legal doesn't necessarily mean reasonable. Shouldn't it use the same standards when examining its own assets? Most of all, the party should never repeat its shameless response: "Sue me."
Leou Chia-feng is a doctoral candidate in the department of politics and international studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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