The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Sept. 6 finished its annual national congress. However, if Taiwan wants to have a viable opposition party in its democracy, the results were far from satisfying.
The KMT again seems to be caught in a time loop, like that one in the 1993 film Groundhog Day.
Yet, unlike the protagonist in that film, the KMT seems unable to learn from past experience and change for the better. Instead, it remains locked in its never-ending cycle of repeating the past.
To borrow from a different artistic genre, the KMT echoes Pete Seeger’s song Where Have All the Flowers Gone? that includes the lines: “When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?”
This is not to say that there was not any good and a little progress in the congress, but the final conclusions remained lacking.
First, look at the good. The theme was admirable: “Protect Taiwan, safeguard democracy and fight for the future.” What Taiwanese could argue with that? Who would not sign up under those words?
Next, it was proposed that no fewer than 15 percent of KMT Central Committee members be under the age of 40. Again, that was good news for a party dominated by too many “old members with old thinking.”
While many of those old members had fled to Taiwan with their families between 1945 and 1949, their hearts have remained in the China of 1947.
The requirement to include younger members would benefit those born in Taiwan after the pro-democracy Kaohsiung Incident. It was only a proposal, but still a good one.
However, the devil soon came out in the details, and that is where everything went south.
The KMT has always lacked someone to not just ask the tough questions, but also to answer them, someone who can put Taiwan first.
Start with the thematic issue of democracy. The KMT has now pledged to defend Taiwan’s democracy. That is good.
However, how far would the KMT really be willing to go?
The KMT has frequently given lip service to democracy.
At the end of the KMT one-party state, it had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the nation’s present democracy.
The reasons the KMT finally accepted democracy were not idealistic, but pragmatic: First, they, the waishengren (外省人, Mainlanders) were outnumbered by the benshengren (本省人, those who came to Taiwan before World War II) by at least a three-to-one ratio.
Second, as the followers of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), they were the ones kicked out of the UN in 1971, not the Taiwanese.
Finally, the US, their previous main supporter, had moved its embassy from Taipei to Beijing in 1979 and began to use “Taiwan” in place of the “Republic of China” (ROC).
It was democracy or collapse.
If the KMT is now committed to democracy as stated in its congress, why does it ignore what is happening in Hong Kong? Hong Kong had been promised democracy by 2017. China broke its promise and never delivered.
Why has the KMT been silent on this? Does the KMT view it as a slight character flaw in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)?
How can the KMT be blithely sending a 100-strong delegation to China to talk about trade and even support potential future reunification when it ignores both Hong Kong and the reasons why the cross-strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement was stymied in Taiwan in 2014? Does the KMT not see this evident disconnect? [Editor’s note: The KMT on Monday decided to boycott the Straits Forum.]
Why has the KMT remained silent on the treatment of the Uighurs in Xinjiang, or the cultural genocide that is going on in Tibet and Inner Mongolia?
These are items that any nation dedicated to democracy would question.
The CCP is a one-party state and has continuously denied democracy. The KMT, which ran its own one-party state for four decades, has never challenged this ideology. Why? Is it envy?
Next, of course, is the nefarious “1992 consensus.”
The CCP has never agreed to or “consented to” the KMT’s interpretation of what “one China” is. It has only agreed that Taiwan belongs to one China and it rules it. Why does the KMT still try to perpetuate this dream? What is their payoff? Are they Quislings in disguise?
The KMT was the “beggars who took over the temple” of Taiwan in 1945 and exploited it to fund its losing war effort in China.
Now, after the Taiwanese retook the temple through democracy, do these same “beggars” believe that they can go back across the Taiwan Strait, convince the CCP to let them join its forces and gain a privileged spot in its temple?
Even if China was to allow such a technical democracy, does the KMT not see that it would certainly be outvoted as a minority within the vastness of China?
Who is it trying to convince? Is it blind to the inevitable, ideological culture clash? Does it somehow believe that it will be above this fray?
The KMT primarily seems determined to preserve the name of the ROC, yet that name represents the “losers” of the war.
In the 1930s, the KMT operated under the ruse that there would be a period of instruction, a period of understanding and then finally a democracy. Why did it give way to corruption instead?
The 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty has never granted sovereignty over Taiwan to the ROC or the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The KMT has for decades been a government in exile and a carpetbagger in Taiwan. What is its plan in claiming the “1992 consensus?”
After insisting on this “consensus,” the KMT further insists on preserving the 1947 Constitution, which it calls its “core” and “rock” belief. In reality, it seems that it only wants to preserve the name “ROC.”
This “constitutional rock” has already been amended seven times and adopted 12 new articles.
Does it still believe that under the Constitution, it can eventually and miraculously restore its rule over “all China,” including the territories of Mongolia, Inner Mongolia and Tibet?
More importantly, does it not see that Taiwan must eventually return to being a simple “province” of the CCP’s China? Or is that the goal?
The PRC no longer masks its intentions. The CCP has never even said that it would consider adopting democracy or give up its one-party state. Does the KMT think that the CCP does not see through its ruse and go along with it?
The beggars wish to return, but they do not come with any power to negotiate in this game. Perhaps they are instead seeking privilege, a way to ingratiate themselves. On the surface, it appears that it is too humiliating for the KMT to consider itself as Taiwanese.
One would have hoped that the recall vote of former Kaohsiung mayor and KMT presidential candidate Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) would have been a wake-up call, but the KMT remains in a state of denial.
Even in this KMT alternative universe, it does not seem to sense the above and that “winter is coming.”
These are the hard questions that the KMT must not just ask, but answer. Taiwan needs a viable opposition party in its democracy. The KMT congress certainly did not help in that regard.
Jerome Keating is a writer based in Taipei.
There are moments in history when America has turned its back on its principles and withdrawn from past commitments in service of higher goals. For example, US-Soviet Cold War competition compelled America to make a range of deals with unsavory and undemocratic figures across Latin America and Africa in service of geostrategic aims. The United States overlooked mass atrocities against the Bengali population in modern-day Bangladesh in the early 1970s in service of its tilt toward Pakistan, a relationship the Nixon administration deemed critical to its larger aims in developing relations with China. Then, of course, America switched diplomatic recognition
The international women’s soccer match between Taiwan and New Zealand at the Kaohsiung Nanzih Football Stadium, scheduled for Tuesday last week, was canceled at the last minute amid safety concerns over poor field conditions raised by the visiting team. The Football Ferns, as New Zealand’s women’s soccer team are known, had arrived in Taiwan one week earlier to prepare and soon raised their concerns. Efforts were made to improve the field, but the replacement patches of grass could not grow fast enough. The Football Ferns canceled the closed-door training match and then days later, the main event against Team Taiwan. The safety
The National Immigration Agency on Tuesday said it had notified some naturalized citizens from China that they still had to renounce their People’s Republic of China (PRC) citizenship. They must provide proof that they have canceled their household registration in China within three months of the receipt of the notice. If they do not, the agency said it would cancel their household registration in Taiwan. Chinese are required to give up their PRC citizenship and household registration to become Republic of China (ROC) nationals, Mainland Affairs Council Minister Chiu Chui-cheng (邱垂正) said. He was referring to Article 9-1 of the Act
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
RSS