From 1949 to 1987, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) imposed 38 years of martial law in the name of resisting the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) after it fled to Taiwan, as it claimed to represent the Republic of China (ROC).
In 2000, the KMT lost the presidency after then-KMT vice chairman Lien Chan (連戰) competed against James Soong (宋楚瑜), who left the party to run as an independent candidate. Following this defeat, the KMT gradually shifted onto the pro-CCP path.
It is contradictory to change from being anti-CCP to pro-CCP. What was the reason for the party’s change in stance? In 2004, Lien and Soong ran on the same ticket, but after losing for the second time in a presidential election, the KMT thought it would never rule again.
However, in 2008, Taiwanese were fooled by Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who won the presidency for the KMT and called himself a “new Taiwanese.” In 2012, they were fooled again. Nevertheless, Ma put an end to the party’s presidential bids.
After former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) concluded her second term last year, the KMT thought it would be its turn to govern. It nominated New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜), a so-called “Taiwanese,” to run in last year’s presidential election, while seeking in vain for support from then-Taiwan People’s Party chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲). Since the KMT lost the election, it has been haunted by its pro-CCP ideology. However, how could an anti-CCP party become pro-CCP? There could be several reasons.
First, it is just lip service. Their actions are just because they want to monopolize the power to rule.
Second, abandoning Taiwan and courting China demonstrates the logic of power, as the KMT and the CCP are Chinese parties.
Third, resisting the CCP was the business of former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國). What is the point now that they have both passed away?
Fourth, as the People’s Republic of China became the legitimate China, when would be the best time, if not now, to remedy its mistakes by making contributions?
Fifth, the KMT and the CCP are basically two birds of a feather.
Sixth, the KMT is obsessed with authoritarianism.
Seventh, it is just the same as the ailing dynasties in Chinese history.
Politicians once known for being patriotic and anti-CCP are the first to side with China. The ROC ruled in China for 38 years and in Taiwan for 76 years. Despite spending twice as much time in Taiwan as in China, the KMT still politically identifies with China. As the party has lost its legitimacy, it could only side with the legitimate China.
This demonstrates the logic of the legitimacy of a regime in traditional Chinese culture, as well as the opportunistic mindset of the KMT. A bunch of anti-CCP patriots have now switched sides and embraced the CCP.
These pseudo-patriots served in important positions during Chiang Kai-shek’s rule. Activists who published the Free China Journal (自由中國), such as Lei Chen (雷震), Yin Hai-kuang (殷海光) and Fu Cheng (傅正) — the real patriots, were imprisoned and punished. Democratic pioneer Peng Ming-min (彭明敏) was also persecuted for speaking the truth.
Time and time again, good people are persecuted, while nasty people get what they want. This is the reality of Chinese history.
The KMT could not be reborn with the ROC in Taiwan. It could not overcome the remnants of its fictional Chineseness and otherness to transform into a normal political party suited to an emerging democratic country. It could not allow new Taiwanese who migrated to this country in 1949 and identify with it to become the master of the emerging nation. There is a cultural pathology behind it.
Those who were superficially loyal to the KMT and patriotic are politicians who frequently shift their stances in a bid to please those in power. They are evil and vile.
Lee Min-yung is a poet.
Translated by Fion Khan
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS