當年今日
關於我們

Editorial: KMT must banish boss politics (Apple Daily Taiwan)

蘋果日報 2020/06/27 11:22



Several Kuomintang (KMT) members who used to be in important positions have recently indicated that newly elected party chairman Johnny Chiang’s proposed narrative of cross-strait relations has failed to put the 92 Consensus on a pedestal. They did so by taking turns to embarrass him. These so-called bosses of the party refused to attend Chiang’s party. Frankly speaking, that only goes to show that they are arrogant and detached from reality. Apart from that, no one cares what sort of drama will ensue, given the KMT’s decline.
Each side took what they wanted from the 92 Consensus

But the matter is still worth discussing despite the party’s going downhill, since it remains the biggest opposition party, and because people still want to have a Taiwan with a healthy system that accommodates an opposition party capable of monitoring and balancing the power of the ruling party, and yet “boss politics” is a hurdle undermining the KMT’s last chance of reforming itself.

These KMT bosses may preen themselves on their ability to keep the line of communication open with Beijing and maintain the stable development of cross-strait relations when they were in power. By way of example, when Lien Chan headed the party, he met with Hu Jintao several times and the top guys of the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) interacted frequently. When Ma Yingjeou was in power, he even had a historical top leaders’ meeting with Xi Jinping in Singapore. The 92 Consensus has undeniably contributed to the major improvement of cross-strait relations.



Nevertheless, progress of cross-strait relations in a peaceful and steady manner in the long run has always been and will always be anchored around the common interest of both sides. In the past, the 92 Consensus might have made in-depth interactions possible between both sides of the strait. But then rather than giving credit to this consensus, which is subject to interpretation by both sides, it makes more sense to say that China in the past wanted cross-strait exchange to cover a bigger scope and move to a higher level, so as to achieve its economic and political objectives: to lure Taiwan’s businessmen and capital and to fight Taiwan independence. As for the KMT, which became rotten and incapable of governance, it was unable to combat the rise of the Democratic Progressive Party. Consequently, it had to try to make breakthroughs in cross-strait relations. Politically, it managed to find its raison d'être. Economically, it established closer political and economic ties with Taiwanese businessmen. Of course, those compradors within the party also managed to make big gains.

As a result, the 92 Consensus became the foundation for both sides of the strait or, to be more precise, the KMT and the CCP, to get on and trade with each other easily. It was just that Beijing kept harping on “one China” as a premise, without ever mentioning the notion of “differing on the definition” of the concept that “there is only one China”, while the KMT held on to the notion in order to show that it defended Taiwan and the Republic of China. The KMT and the CCP simply took what they respectively need from the 92 Consensus. That in no way meant the two sides of the straits truly understood each other.
Cross-strait narrative should reflect the zeitgeist

With the minor and major changes at home and abroad, however, the focus of Beijing’s policy towards Taiwan has switched from going against Taiwan independence to promoting reunification. Its call for “one China” is getting louder. Meanwhile, the KMT is more likely to lose than win in elections because it is unable to shake off its “pro-China traitor” image. It is even at risk of being eliminated and replaced. The notion of “differing on the definition” of “there is only one China” is like some unclear gibberish. It helps prevent Taiwan’s diplomatic allies from being wooed away and also enables the island to take part in the World Health Assembly as an observer. But all this is like slices of meat and bones donated by a merciful Beijing. The KMT is smug about that but Taiwanese people see that as a loss of dignity. They do not think Taiwan or the Republic of China can last long by relying on the “sincerity” of Beijing that can be retrieved anytime.

Even though the 92 Consensus is really about “differing on the definition” of “there is only one China”, the fact that “there is only one China” comes before “differing on the definition” effectively enables Beijing to use the former to overpower the latter. In particular, when Xi came up with the “one country, two systems” proposal for Taiwan, the 92 Consensus that the KMT had in mind was unfortunately distorted and deprived of its essence by Beijing.

If the KMT bosses really care, they should make it clear to Beijing that they are very unhappy and make an effort to strive for what they want. By targeting Chiang only, they are living in the past, showing themselves to be old folks who stick to outworn beliefs and also indicating that they are a disgraceful lot not willing to let go of their role as compradors. In effect, they are accomplices destroying the 92 Consensus.

If KMT members of this generation still fail to come up with a cross-strait narrative that reflects the zeitgeist but allow themselves to be manipulated by KMT bosses, the party will not be able to survive.
-----------------------------
Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app
To know more: https://bit.ly/2yMMfQE
Apple Daily mobile app latest version DOWNLOAD NOW