After more than 100 days in opposition, one would expect an experienced party like the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to be able to act as a constructive and critical opposition party promoting issues of great importance for Taiwan’s future. However, instead of sobermindedness, the KMT has used the time to criticize progressive policies and events that it does not like — and that is a lot.
Not wanting to lose its ill-gotten assets, the KMT has accused the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) of interfering in its fundraising. It also claims that the DPP’s policies are endangering Taiwan, saying they are based on leftist socialist ideas that will transform Taiwan into a new Cuba.
Overseas, the KMT is also saying that cross-strait relations are doomed, because President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) does not accept the so-called “1992 consensus,” referring to a supposed agreement between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party that both sides of the Taiwan Strait acknowledge that there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “China” means.
A reality check reveals that the KMT is clinging to the past and accusing the DPP government of arrogance for not understanding and appreciating the KMT’s greatness and past achievements. The KMT lost China and it is now going to lose Taiwan. It would be better for the KMT to realize this and move ahead with policies that are Taiwan-focused.
If people look into the details, they will better understand why it is hard to believe that the KMT will become wiser.
Recently, the KMT discussed the Act Governing the Handling of Ill-gotten Properties by Political Parties and Their Affiliate Organizations (政黨及其附隨組織不當取得財產處理條例). One of the goals is to ensure that the KMT returns questionably obtained assets to the public. Instead of looking forward to a normalization of Taiwan’s politics, the KMT said that the act disregards its contributions to Taiwan.
KMT Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) even suggested that Taiwan owes the KMT and not the other way around.
Accusing the DPP of being a leftist party is out of proportion. The DPP is hardly a leftist socialist party, because of conflicts in the labor market. Strikes are very normal in democratic nations and are used to improve labor rights. Moreover, it is not a leftist socialist idea to cut to the number of national holidays for overworked Taiwanese as the DPP has suggested. Stagnant wages and poor working condition are partly the KMT’s fault.
Instead of throwing mud at the DPP, the KMT should promote policies to upgrade the Taiwanese labor market and unleash Taiwanese creativity and innovation.
Finally, the KMT continues to promote the “1992 consensus” as the savior of the nation’s economy and its relationship with China. Beijing’s reaction to Tsai has been relatively modest. Retrospectively, the KMT’s obsession with the “1992 consensus” has not given Taiwan more real international space, but rather contributed to the KMT’s downfall through the Sunflower movement and Taiwanese’s negative reaction to an economic integration with China, which they fear would lead to more social inequality.
The first 100 days in government can impact the performance over the entire election period, but so can the first 100 days in opposition. The question of when the KMT will become a wise and relevant party remains unanswered after the first 100 days in opposition.
Political dialogue and cooperation among parties are not a strong competence of Taiwanese politicians, but the opposition has the chance to make that change to the benefit of Taiwan.
Michael Danielsen is the chairman of Taiwan Corner, an independent member-based association.
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
Prior to marrying a Taiwanese and moving to Taiwan, a Chinese woman, surnamed Zhang (張), used her elder sister’s identity to deceive Chinese officials and obtain a resident identity card in China. After marrying a Taiwanese, surnamed Chen (陳) and applying to move to Taiwan, Zhang continued to impersonate her sister to obtain a Republic of China ID card. She used the false identity in Taiwan for 18 years. However, a judge ruled that her case does not constitute forgery and acquitted her. Does this mean that — as long as a sibling agrees — people can impersonate others to alter, forge
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,