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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS