The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is floundering. Over its past two years of politicking, it has racked up a staggering number of losses on votes that it initiated. Two of its four recall drives failed, and each of the two that succeeded only served to add another Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) seat to the legislature. This is not to mention the slap in the face that was last month’s referendum, with all four of its proposals soundly defeated, despite the money and effort that the party put into them.
For all of its talk about upholding the duties of the opposition and “standing on the side of the people,” the KMT has lost sight of what this means after six years out of power.
As the KMT has itself proclaimed, the role of an opposition party is to hold the ruling party to account. In a perfect system, the opposition would scrutinize government proposals to improve them through free debate on behalf of the minority they represent. Drastic measures such as boycotts would be reserved for truly egregious oversteps as it fine-tuned its platform for the next election.
This is a far cry from reality. Instead of an opposition party, the KMT has fashioned itself into a party of opposition, reflexively opposing the DPP no matter the policy, even when it serves its own interests.
As the examples are nearly innumerable, why not focus on the most recent? On Thursday, KMT lawmakers abstained from participating in a public hearing of the Legislative Yuan’s Constitutional Amendment Committee to protest the DPP’s alleged contravention of procedure, claiming it was “faking the process to deceive the public.” It even went so far as to demand that the DPP take responsibility for the failure of the process, crudely admitting to its plan to tank the amendment and pin it on the DPP.
All of this was done to blockade a popular constitutional amendment that would lower the voting age to 18. Considering its aging voter base, this is the kind of policy that the party should get behind to foster good sentiment among younger demographics. With the right messaging, it could claim credit for the change and show young voters that the KMT is not just their grandparents’ party.
Instead, it has demeaned the youth vote as susceptible only to superficial pandering through KMT swag, terrible rap songs and now non-fungible tokens of party artifacts, as it hops on the digital-art bandwagon with a version of a sword that belonged to former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石).
Even though the party has been burned by its contrarianism time and again, it will have a difficult time changing tack. As reflexive opposition is expected, any cooperation is perceived as a humiliating loss to hardcore KMT supporters.
The party felt this acutely over the weekend when it came under fire from Broadcasting Corp of China chairman Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康) for supporting the resumption of food imports from Fukushima and four other Japanese prefectures, given that Tokyo can guarantee their safety.
There was nothing drastic about the statement released on Friday, yet it apparently made Jaw “almost faint.” He then proceeded to outline the corrupted version of opposition politics that has crippled the KMT, saying that it is the party’s duty as the opposition to present data to counter the DPP. In a perfect system, scientific data would escape politicization and all parties would draft policy based on evidence. Yet that does not mesh with the self-styled party of opposition.
The KMT knows it is floundering. If it continues to oppose everything without offering something to believe in, it will only consign itself to the past.
As the Soviet Union was collapsing in the late 1980s and Russia seemed to be starting the process of democratization, 36-year-old US academic Francis Fukuyama had the audacity to assert that the world was at the “end of history.” Fukuyama claimed that democratic systems would become the norm, and peace would prevail the world over. He published a grandiose essay, “The End of History?” in the summer 1989 edition of the journal National Interest. Overnight, Fukuyama became a famous theorist in the US, western Europe, Japan and even Taiwan. Did the collapse of the Soviet Union mark the end of an era as
During a news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in Tokyo on Monday, US President Joe Biden for the third time intimated that the US would take direct military action to defend Taiwan should China attack. Responding to a question from a reporter — Would Washington be willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan? — Biden replied with an unequivocal “Yes.” As per Biden’s previous deviations from the script of the US’ longstanding policy of “strategic ambiguity” — maintaining a deliberately nebulous position over whether the US would intervene militarily in the event of a conflagration between Taiwan and
Will the US come to the defense of Taiwan if and when China makes its move? Like most friends of Taiwan, I’ve been saying “yes” for a couple decades. But the truth is that none of us, in or out of government, really know. This is precisely why we all need to show humility in our advice on how Taiwan should prepare itself for such an eventuality. After all, it’s their country, and they have no choice but to live with the consequences. A couple weeks ago the New York Times published an article that put this reality in stark relief. As
US President Joe Biden has done it again — for the third time in the past nine months he has stated that the US will defend Taiwan. And for the third time, his administration officials have rushed to “clarify” that US policy toward Taiwan “has not changed” and Washington still follows its “one China policy.” That is the same scenario that played out with two other presidents. When asked the question posed to Biden in 2001, then-US president George W. Bush said Washington would do “whatever it took” to defend Taiwan against Chinese aggression. In 2020, then-US president Donald Trump
RSS