Taiwanese wrote another page in the history of the democracy movement at the weekend. However, some people seem to think that protests are “organized crime,” and that the protesters “should all be locked up.” This was the mentality of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) politicians during the years of authoritarian rule, and in fact a core concept of KMT rule in general.
Egged on by New Party Chairman Yok Mu-ming (郁慕明), Minster of the Interior Lee Hong-yuan (李鴻源) — who did not come out to see what the protesters were saying — said that he would be seeking compensation for damage to property. It seems the law has become the weapon of choice for the KMT in its neo-authoritarian phase.
This neo-authoritarian mentality goes a long way to explaining the present KMT government’s compound indifference: indifference to the plight of ordinary people, and indifference to its own ignorance and incompetence. Initially, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) attempted to show the public his good intentions by installing a new premier, Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺). However, the trouble with Ma’s entire team is crystallized in Ma himself: a complacency in his own abilities coupled with the compound indifference.
It is this compound indifference that makes Ma reduce all problems to an issue of public relations. He attempts to remedy all his administrative screw-ups by presenting them in a more amiable light, obscured by a cloud of rhetoric and misrepresentation. The other pernicious side to this kind of leadership is that the blame always lands at the feet of the ruled, and never the ruler.
With the exception of Greater Taichung Mayor Jason Hu (胡志強), who is roughly as senior in the party ranks as Ma, and who is occasionally critical of him, there is nobody else in the party who is willing to tell it like it is: All of them just dance to the beat of Ma’s drum.
There is hardly any need to mention all of the broken political promises: Ma’s own “6-3-3” campaign promise of at least 6 percent economic growth, under 3 percent unemployment and average annual income of US$30,000; his assurances of “complete governance and complete responsibility”; Vice President Wu Den-yih’s (吳敦義) promises concerning amendments to the Land Expropriation Act (土地徵收法) and his assurance to the residents of Dapu Borough (大埔) when premier; or Jiang’s agreement to revise the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法).
These politicians have made promises without the political competence or sincerity to see them through, and made them to further their own political careers.
In the aftermath, they try to absolve themselves of responsibility by dragging out the public relations machine, entirely indifferent to the needs of the public or the anger and frustration at the betrayal in their actions.
This is a different type of authoritarianism, because no matter how loud the public rails and shouts, government officials are totally unaffected by them, changing neither their policies nor their behavior.
Politicians do as they please, refuse to face public protests, try to absolve themselves of all responsibility and do nothing to remedy the situation. This is the modern reboot of the KMT’s authoritarian franchise: KMT2.0. And they pay little attention to the fact that the protesters have continuously said that this recent occupation of government buildings was only the start of a civil disobedience movement. There is more to come.
Chu Ping-tzu is an associate professor of Chinese literature at National Tsing Hua University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
The Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercises, the largest naval exercise in the region, are aimed at deepening international collaboration and interaction while strengthening tactical capabilities and flexibility in tackling maritime crises. China was invited to participate in RIMPAC in 2014 and 2016, but it was excluded this year. The underlying reason is that Beijing’s ambitions of regional expansion and challenging the international order have raised global concern. The world has made clear its suspicions of China, and its exclusion from RIMPAC this year will bring about a sea change in years to come. The purpose of excluding China is primarily