Wed, Jan 22, 2020 page3

• KMT’s Hau calls for new cross-strait policy

  ‘COLLABORATORS’: While the DPP rejects the ‘1992 consensus,’ the CCP does not even recognize the Republic of China’s existence, the former KMT vice chairman said

  • By Ann Maxon / Staff reporter
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) vice chairman Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌), who on Monday evening announced his bid for KMT chairperson, yesterday said that the party must come to a new consensus on its cross-strait stance, as the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) “have collaborated to destroy” the Republic of China (ROC).

  Hau stepped down along with former KMT chairman Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) on Wednesday last week, following the party’s defeats in the Jan. 11 presidential and legislative elections. He launched his bid via Facebook on Monday.

  Hau is the third person to commit to joining the KMT’s March 7 chairperson by-election, following National Taiwan University political science professor Chang Ya-chung (張亞中) and Blue Sky Action Alliance convener Wu Chih-chang (武之璋).

  

  Former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) vice chairman Hau Lung-bin talks to the media in Taipei yesterday after announcing his bid to run for KMT chairman.

  Photo: Liao Chen-huei, Taipei Times

  If elected chairman, he would be committed to helping the KMT overcome its “unprecedented crisis” and fostering young talent in the party, Hau wrote on Facebook.

  To ensure the party is in touch with public opinion and to encourage more young members to participate, he would promote new regulations to guarantee the party’s elected officials meet certain quotas, and that there are members aged 40 and younger in the KMT Central Committee and Central Standing Committee, he said.

  He would also promote internal dialogue to develop a cross-strait policy for the party, he said.

  During an interview with radio station News98 yesterday, Hau said that one reason the KMT lost the elections was because “the DPP and CCP have collaborated to destroy the ROC.”

  While the DPP rejects the “1992 consensus” and even interprets it as supporting Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formula, the CCP refuses to acknowledge the existence of the ROC or the consensus’ perquisite of “one China, with each side having its own interpretation of what China means,” he said.

  Although the “1992 consensus” worked well for both sides of the Strait from 2008 to 2016, currently “there is no consensus between the KMT and the CCP,” he said.

  If the KMT cannot develop a new cross-strait policy that is acceptable to the public and the other side of the Taiwan Strait, “the KMT’s development would be limited,” he said.

  Asked for comment, KMT Legislator Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安), who has been described by some political watchers as a political star of the KMT’s middle generation, said he looks forward to the reform plans of any party member who is willing to shoulder the responsibility of party chairperson.

  As a KMT member, he would seek to assist the party in the reforms that follow, he added.

  Separately yesterday, KMT Central Committee member Sean Lien (連勝文) told Pop Radio that he has received 200 to 300 text messages from friends urging him to run for KMT chairperson.

  However, even if he decides to launch a bid, as an individual he would not be able shoulder all responsibility for leading the KMT, he said.

  The party needs collective leadership, he said, adding that, more importantly, members must avoid conflicts of interest.

  Some members run for chairperson because they want to run for president and end up tearing the party apart, he said.

  Many Central Standing Committee members spend their time fawning over the upper management with the hope of obtaining a legislator-at-large seat, he added.

  The so-called “1992 consensus,” a term former Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) in 2006 admitted making up in 2000, refers to a tacit understanding between the KMT and the Chinese government that both sides of the Strait acknowledge there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “China” means.

  Additional reporting by Wu Su-wei and Chen Yu-fu
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Chinese spy prosecutions tripled in four years

  • 2

    Snowfall a reminder of former ski resort on Hehuanshan

  • 3

    TSMC has begun 4-nm chip production in US, official says

  • 4

    Over 760 foreign money mules arrested last year: CIB

  • 5

    Taiwan start-up hub established in Silicon Valley