Tuesday

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Down with the DPP?: Excluded middles and the recent protests against Chen and Lu

"She had heard all about excluded middles; they were bad shit; to be avoided, and how had it ever happened here, with the chances so good for diversity? For it was now like walking among matrices of a great digital computer, the zeroes and ones twinned above, hanging like balanced mobiles right and left, ahead, thick, maybe endless. Behind the hieroglyphic streets there would either be a transcendent meaning, or only the earth."

- Thomas Pynchon, The Crying of Lot 49

Over the Double-ten holiday, on a bus coming back from Sun-Moon Lake , I finally got around to reading the last fifty pages or so of the essays from Taiwan Thinktank’s conference on Transitional Justice. By the time I was again soaking in the scooter-fume bouquet of Taipei , I was seething at just how awful these people are.

At the same time more or less, Bent was registering his distaste for the government’s decision to hold its first military parade in over fifteen years, which had taken place the day before:

Put yourself in the shoes of Joe World-Citizen. You see this blurb in your morning paper, and honestly, is there anything in this article that generates sympathy (and possible future support) for Taiwan ?

Not that I can see. Sure, there’s a bit about China ’s missiles, but it’s in the same story advertising Taiwan ’s first military parade in 16 years as well as three new missiles. To the uneducated, it simply looks like the pot calling the kettle black!

And about that 16 year lapse, do we really want to return to 1991? That was the year members of the Legislative Yuan representing non-existant mainland constituencies were forced to resign - after 41 years! Should we bring them back too?

The last 16 years have seen unbelievable progress in Taiwan , especially in the area of political freedom and human rights. And THAT is what we should be celebrating. Why not a parade showing off the gains of the last 16 years? Why not a speech highlighting Taiwan ’s democracy? Instead of competing with China , why not show off the contrast?

It was a wonderful post. That I assume most people would agree with — or so I thought at the time. In fact, it was enough that there was very little criticism of the image conveyed by hundreds of soldiers and their toys strolling down Main Street, but on top of that Bent actually received emails criticizing him for his, supposed, unbalanced reporting:

[The emails] basically took me to task for not noting the systematic problems the AFP news service has had properly characterizing Taiwan .

Now let me be clear. There is a serious problem with the way most of the world media characterizes Taiwan and China . The AP, Reuters and AFP are often unfair and flat-out wrong, and it’s important the problem be fixed. But if the message itself is bad for Taiwan , as Wednesday’s message was, is that the fault of the messager or the one issuing the message?

And that brings me back to the opening of this post, where I wrote, “Indeed, it’s arguably MORE important that we criticize those with whom we agree, especially when our common adversaries are undoubtedly evil.”

Those of us who support Taiwan , it’s people, and it’s democracy are unified by our disdain for the KMT. The party has systematically exploited, corrupted, stolen from and murdered the Taiwanese people, and even today spends more time defending the chief author of those actions than it does making an honest effort to govern.

But, and this is the crucial point, that doesn’t mean the DPP is above criticism. Yes, the DPP is the KMT’s chief rival, and yes, they have the advantage of the moral high ground. But as I already said at the beginning of this article, “When we see that advantage being lessened by self-inflicted wounds, it’s essential we self-correct.”

I too have gotten these sorts of emails from various people for the same offense, yet this particular instance has been eating at me for some time, in that Bent’s original post can in no way be construed as a damning condemnation of the DPP itself. Hardly. It was a criticism of a decision that sends a horrible message to the rest of the world, especially when one considers the numerous other facets of Taiwanese life the government could have chosen to beam across the globe.

I’ve nothing but disdain for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), yet I’d be a hypocrite if I wasn’t democratic with my criticism. Some people, however, seem to think that the criticism of every action made by anyone even remotely related to the KMT or of the minutiae that wedge themselves between inconsequential paragraphs in insignificant newspaper articles should be liberally discussed, while any criticism of the DPP is either irrelevant or finds its import in the unfair and uninformed reporting that begot the story.

That is hypocrisy.

Sure, the stakes are different here in Taiwan , but stooping to the level of KMT fatcats and PRC goons doesn’t make it any better. The DPP deserves an honest ass-kicking from the public, because it is supposed to be the party for the people. It doesn’t have the luxury the KMT does of having set such a low bar for itself. Falling back on the fact “that unlike the former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government, the DPP administration would not ask someone like late gangster boss Chen Chi-li (陳啟禮) to assassinate dissidents” just doesn’t cut it.

This is the kind of argument you hear in the states all the time whenever any criticism is leveled against current or former actions.

Frenchman: Look at zee poor people dying een zee streets of Nouvelle Orléans.

American: Oh yeah, Frenchie? You have a little heat wave, and more than ten thousand people die because they can’t get a fan. And, your government lies to you about it.

Frenchman: Your gouvernement lied to you about zee wah een Eeraq.

American: Oil for food?

And so on. You see, both sides have valid arguments, neither negating the other — both France and the United States have serious problems with government kickbacks, racial inequalities, liars, hacks, and idiots Yet, proceeding as such doesn’t exonerate either side. It only functions as a means to denigrate the credibility of the opponent.

So, if you believe in democracy, prove it. Those who believe that their elected officials are their representatives should be holding said men and women to flames. The DPP, from the get-go, had set a very high standard for itself. Its objectives were nothing less than to make Taiwan into an independent and respectable democratic nation. That’s a lot higher than the KMT standard of “We’re not killing people anymore, right?”

I’m wondering why Bent and I get these emails in the first place, because sites like ours hardly get the traffic Michael Turton’s do. I know certain among those who complain are regular readers of that site, yet Turton criticizes the DPP’s actions on a regular basis. Remember when he wrote this about the selection of Chen as the Chairman of the DPP:

ANALYST 1: New Chairman....new chairman...who?
ANALYST 2: I've got an idea....why don't we make an unpopular President who already mishandled one set of legislative elections the first time around the party Chairman again!
ANALYST 3: God, that's brilliant! You're a genius!
ANALYST 4: Wish I'd thought of it.
ANALYST 1: You must be channeling Karl Rove.
ANALYST 3: Perfect! The KMT has Honorary Chairman for Life Lien Chan, so we definitely need one too.
SHIAO MING: But....but....Lien Chan lost two elections, and he's uglier than the hind end of a yak.
ANALYST 2: [ponders] Don't worry. I think we can reach that standard.
SHIAO MING: But...but...don't you think the DPP should promote some up and coming young person like Hsiao Bi-khim or Lin Jia-lung? Or maybe give an experienced person like Tsai Ing-wen the post as a profile raiser? I mean, party heavyweights will be making all the decisions anyway...so why not cultivate talent?
ANALYST 1: What a stupid idea! What are you, some kind of Chinese spy?
ANALYST 3: Yeah, who are you anyway?
SHIAO MING: Uh...I'm just here delivering the lunchboxes. Who's having the vegetarian?

Is just that Turton’s so pro-Green that he transcends the “thou shalt not pass judgment on the DPP” dictum?

Did I miss a memo?

It might not be clear as to why I’m bring this up now — after all, Bent’s post was written over a month ago. Well, the news about the economy hasn’t been too bright as of late [1], and it’s caused several political spectacles (along with the issue over the sanitarium here in XinZhuang). Both President Chen and Vice-President Annette Lu have been the victims of people, ostensibly, saying what they believe, rather than showering them with praise.

The two issues I’m talking about specifically are as follows. First:

At a separate setting, a father surnamed Chang (張) shouted "A-bian [Chen's nickname] step down," before Chen was to deliver a speech at the Taipei Municipal Zhong Zheng Elementary School centennial celebrations yesterday morning.

Chang was taken away and later told reporters his behavior was not premeditated.

He said he was disappointed with the performance of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government over the years and that he was particularly upset by remarks Chen had made a few days earlier.

Chen came under fire for making comments about a heckler who shouted: "People can barely make a living" while attending an exhibition at the World Trade Center on Thursday.

Chen appeared momentarily distracted but soon regained his composure and said that unlike the former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government, the DPP administration would not ask someone like late gangster boss Chen Chi-li (陳啟禮) to assassinate dissidents.

The president mentioned the incident at another setting later that day, saying the heckler must have a decent lifestyle or he would not have had the time, frame of mind or money to attend the exhibition.

According to my translator, the man was actually an employee of the exhibition, a job he got as a favor from his friend — the organizer — since the man’s business had recently caved due — as was his claim, I think — certain of Chen’s economic policies, like not relaxing investment barriers with China.

Then, of course, the KMT had a field day with an incident involving one of the President’s guards slamming a female student protester to the grand:

The KMT caucus yesterday showed reporters two pictures -- one of the guards throwing a female student to the ground while another guard dragged away a male student who was kneeling down as he tried to plead with Chen.

Kuo lashed out at the guards for dealing with "unarmed students this way," adding that this had traumatized the students physically and psychologically.

KMT Legislator Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), who was also at the conference, said the way the presidential guards treated the students showed that Chen seemed to regard the people as "terrorists."

Such treatment had also undermined public trust and respect for the president, Hung said.

My heart is racing just reading that and asking myself what right a member of the KMT — a party that refuses to take responsible for a number of much worse atrocities — has condemning such an action, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong. I saw the video, and it seems excessive to me, too. The president should apologize for the actions of his guards, explaining that they are his protection, they were doing their job, but it was admittedly excessive.

My heart is racing just reading that and asking myself what right a member of the KMT — a party that refuses to take responsible for a number of much worse atrocities — has condemning such an action, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong. I saw the video, and it seems excessive to me, too. The president should apologize for the actions of his guards, explaining that they are his protection, they were doing their job, but it was admittedly excessive.

Instead, though, this was the response:

Meanwhile, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislative caucus accused the KMT of orchestrating the latest string of incidents involving the president.

"I encourage the KMT to stand up and bravely admit it," DPP legislative caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) said.

"Taiwanese would not do things like that. It is obvious that there's a mastermind behind all these using them as an election ploy," Ker said. "It is clever. It does not cost a lot of money, but it creates the desired effect."

Unless you have proof, you cannot just blame the other guy. It makes you look weak. Take responsibility for it. Be the bigger politico. I personally have met a lot of people very involved in the movement to save the sanitarium, and they are certainly not blues.

The other incident I want to note is Vice-president Annette Lu’s reaction to a woman who told her that business wasn’t good. I cannot find any reference to this in the Taipei Times, so here’s the China Post:

Annette Lu displeased would-be protesters by calling a pork retailer in Kaohsiung a "fake." She said the retailer, a woman, did not sell pork.

"She protested because she was told to do so," the vice president said. The pork seller was a genuine retailer, however.

Does this pass as being a leader in the party that claims to be the bridge to a better Taiwan ? Is it at all possible that inflation is having serious adverse effects on this woman’s business? Are you just going to pass all criticism off as political suicide bombing?

I guess the party line is, If you’re happy, your with us. If you’re not, you’re a hired goon.

In closing, I obviously have to give two clarifications. First, I hate the KMT. I’m well aware of the atrocities and injustices it has propagated. Yet, I do find myself at times asking if the DPP is that much better at taking responsibility for what it does. Yet, I understand their reluctance to take responsibility, since the KMT’s grip on the Legistlative Yuan also stalls a lot of initiatives the DPP would like to push through, seeing as the KMT stands to lose power with every initiative the greens push.

Second, I know that any of the claims made by DPP officials — that the students and the pork vendor were hired by the KMT — could very well be true. However, I’ve personally not seen anything leading me to that conclusion, and I am unsettled by the idea that passing off criticism as some sort of conspiracy is seen as an effective political strategy.

The reason I criticize the DPP is because I hold it up to a much higher standard than I do the KMT. For the DPP to just say, “Oh, do you see us blacklisting Taiwanese who go abroad? No.” “Do you see us using ill-gotten gains to further our political machine? No.” etc. is not acceptable. By playing their game, you give them credibility, to be above it, you make them look foolish.

[1] Keep in mind, I’m not saying that it’s all bad. There’s been good news. Also, please don't tell me to read this, because I've read it, and all of the comments, twice. It is worth reading though.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...: I think you seriously underestimate the gangster connections of the DPP.

Also, you're hardly being fair to the younger KMT members. Yes, Soong was a crook (as is our Chen Shui-bian), but the current KMT politicians have far fewer crimes and far less violence on their hands than the DPP do.; 12:52 PM
Robert said...: Maybe I do. I'd be very interested in learning about that.

About the younger KMT, I've thought about that a lot. Those younger guys and gals weren't in the party during the White Terror, but they still made a decision to join a party responsible for such violence that refuses to hold itself accountable.

That choice leads me to believe, all though they may be better than some of the old guard, that doesn't necessarily make them good.; 6:11 PM
Poagao said...: This post makes sense to me, as it asks the questions that most foreigners who blindly support the DPP and condemn the KMT can't bring themselves to ask. My disdain for the DPP in light of this situation gets me painted deep blue by most foreign bloggers, though I have problems with both parties. The "KMT as ultimate EVIL!" stance is difficult for me to understand; even though I've been here for nearly 20 years, it still feels like someone saying they could never vote Republican because of all the lives Joe McCarthy ruined.; 8:36 PM
Robert said...: Poagao, thanks. I'm beginning to think that the most nagging difficulty I have with politics is I think both sides are miserable.

I've found the US and Europe to be that way. There's no reason that Asia would be any different.

I disagree with you though, about the McCarthyism analogy.

To be clear, my biggest problems with the KMT aren't so much their policies compared to the other parties' -- where they stand on the economy, health care, etc. I still have a lot more to learn about that (luckily I have the luxury of time, seeing as I'm not expected to vote).

Yet, the fact the KMT itself is illegal (no party is allowed to have ownership of assets) is what gets under my skin. Their very existence undermines the democratic process, in that these illegal assets add up to BILLIONS of dollars.

(It was, after all, only about seven years ago that the KMT was the "richest political party in the world," and maybe still is).

Now, don't get me wrong, the KMT's not owning up to the other things its done gets under my skin (many of which I think are considerably more nefarious than the McCarthy witch hunts), but I'm willing to stick it in the "all politicians are dirty and rotten" box, fully cognizant that just about every political party in the world -- the DPP included -- has skeletons (lots of them) in the basement.

Again, this doesn't mean I accept it. The people responsible for specific crimes should be brought to justice, but that doesn't mean that the entire party has to be brought down.

If it was the case that the KMT gave back its billions -- I'd be perfectly happy to just watch the elections pan out (not that I have any choice otherwise). If I were a Taiwanese person, I'd vote for Hsieh, anyway, considering his past, it seems to me, shows devotion to an ideal and a determination to make it a reality, while Ma was just a lacky for the party that (at the time) was the vehicle of the oppression that Hsieh was fighting.

That doesn't necessarily show a DPP/KMT slant, rather it just seems that one candidate is stacks up better against the other.; 4:02 AM
Mark said...: I agree with Poagao's analogy. I don't think any worse of FDR for having joined the former "slavery party".

I'm also beginning to get very curious about how you view Taiwan's history. I lived in Taipei during Ma's term, and it sure didn't seem like he was a lackey or agent of oppression to me. He turned away from a lot of Chen's moral conservative excesses, got rid of the heaps of garbage all over the city, and actually listened to a lot of outside input.

Don't forget his crackdown on black gold politics within his own party while he was Minister of Justice. His actions were sharply different from those of the elders in his party, and he accomplished things he couldn't have from outside. There is a reason KMT insiders don't like him, you know.

Ma isn't perfect but calling him a lackey of oppression just doesn't make sense.; 8:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Robert... you voted for Strom Thurmond
-Rhett; 9:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Calling politicians dirty is just redundant.

I am Taiwanese and I used to be proud of my country. Maybe KMT was just lucky that they happened to put the right people in place to take Taiwan into prosperity after 1949. Not knowing about the atrocities they committed (they never taught that in school), I still wasn't a fan. However, I could honestly say our country was doing really well at the time.

Now that Taiwan has gone through 2 terms under Chen, the results are that the people are more divided than ever. Not that having people divided is necessarily bad. But the conversations between 2 sides are dominated by spite, which is the polar opposite of productivity. The government sets the agenda after all, although I am equally angry at KMT for again and again engaging in the same pathetic spit-fight.

If DPP has such high standards, why does it choose Chen as its leader? He reminds me of Rove to a certain degree. My deep suspicion of Hsieh stems from the same general attitudes he seems to have. Ma might be less capable than Hsieh is, but I can't help feeling that I am picking between two rotten apples.; 2:07 PM
Robert said...: Mark,

I'll admit, I don't know enough about Ma. I'll admit that I'm being unfair based on my limited knowledge of his recent political endeavors, most of what I know is about his formative years.

Like this (http://tinyurl.com/2m7agw):

Ma: failed the bar
Hsieh: human rights lawyer

Ma: Minster of Justice
Hsieh: Premier

Ma: no deliberative background
Hsieh: Taipei City Councilor

Ma: no deliberative background
Hsieh: Legislator

Ma: Mayor of Taipei
Hsieh: Mayor of Kaohsiung

Ma: Chairman, KMT
Hsieh: Chairman, DPP

Ma: head, RDEC
Hsieh: no similar experience

Ma: no prior national election experience
Hsieh: Veep candidate, 1996

Ma: no media experience
Hsieh:Talk show host, TVBS

Ma: servant of authoritarian regime
Hsieh: opponent of authoritarian regime

Yet, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on those analogies between FDR or McCarthyism. Again, I see the big difference being that the KMT's stolen assets amount to BILLIONS of dollars (http://tinyurl.com/2jo8dn):

The KMT is said to have illegally seized land and property worth millions of pounds when the Japanese were forced to flee Taiwan, which they ruled as a colony from 1895-1945.

An initial investigation by the government's audit arm, the Control Yuan, has found there is a case to answer and now the Taiwanese Cabinet has ordered a further inquiry.

Campaigners say many KMT assets should be returned to the government. But the nationalists say the accusations are a cynical political move ahead of elections in December.

I guess I'll finally sit down and write about this today, but just to illustrate my point, if you add up both parties' financial sources (Party owned enterprises, party asset income, election subsidy, political donations, membership fees, and special party fees) the DPP comes out with NT$620 million, while the KMT has a wopping NT$5.38 BILLION.*

Seventy-four percent of the KMT's finances come from the owning and selling off of party assets.

*"Source: Research, Development and Evaluation Commission, Executive Yuan (party assets website)" from the book on Transitional Justice.; 8:05 PM
Poagao said...: Robert, I know you mean well, but pulling out an oversimplified and cherry-picked list from Michael Turton's site and quoting a DPP book written basically as election propaganda isn't that convincing to me. Even in the selection you quoted from that article, did you notice the passive tense and phrases like "campaigners say..."?

I understand your conundrum, however. It is a highly emotional issue and it is hard to find solid and objective sources of information on the subject.; 9:08 PM
nostalgiphile said...: Yes, the excluded middle, even though Pynchon is talking about something else here. What you're talking about all stems from the 2005 "electoral reforms" in which the KMT and the DPP decided to close ranks and drive out the then thriving and worrisome third parties (esp. PFP, TSU but also my Greens). The TSU bit it, was one result and the New and PFP parties were more or less absorbed into the KMT. Much like in the US, the two major parties now hold the nation in thrall. Big Politics is a dirty business, but the one good thing about narrowing the bandwidth is that it did focus everything on the primary problem: independence or unification?

Also, Poagao's KMT:GOP analogy isn't feasible, or reasonable, at all: the GOP never did the things to Americans that the KMT did to the Taiwanese. If he thinks the two are even remotely comparable he needs to read considerably more about the KMT White Terror era. Moreover, many a sack of shit in the KMT today still thinks the way Joe McCarthy and Chiang Kai-shek did in the 50s.

To summarize, effectively erasing the third parties from the political spectrum in 2005 was a very bad thing, but without proportional representation they had no chance anyway. Right, and the KMT is still an undemocratic party (note the Leninist role of the "Central Committee" and their candidate selection method) that's run variously from the back door of the United Bamboo gang's headquarters and the front door of the CCP. Still remember Lian Chan boldly talking about the "deals" he'd cut with the PRC on his last trip?; 9:46 PM
Robert said...: Poagao,

I'm not cherry-picking. The link was presented to show my limits of my knowledge. It wasn't meant to convince you of anything other than the fact that my knowledge is limited.

I'm going with what I've got. I've said it a hundred times on this site that I'm not trying to be one side or the other. I've read/am reading everything I can get my hands on.

If I knew of KMT thinktanks and conferences, hell, I'd go. I'd read their propaganda. I want to be as objective about this as I can be.

I'm forever asking people who disagree with me to send me links, recommend books, etc., but I rarely get it.

So, I'm on my own.

(I also know that my level of Chinese limits the documents I can access.)

I write about what I know, and nearly every article I write has references to the fact that I know there is a lot more to learn.

I respect your opinion, having been here for so long. I certainly take it into account. I know you are the one of the only "Taiwanese" bloggers here.

I do not want to be part of the "blues are evil incarnate" camp, either. The purpose of this whole blog is to try to process everything I read and make it into some sort of coherent standpoint. I want learn about Taiwan (all aspects of it), and it's hard.

I can't stress this enough. My standpoints now have very little to do with where I may stand in the future.

However, that said, I would like to see any sort of contrapuntal evidence that shows that the KMT does not have billions of dollars of illegal assets (is it not illegal for a political party to have private assets?). I'm fairly certain the KMT has admitted to this discrepancy but has been reluctant to rectify it.

If you agree that they have these billions, do you believe that it's better left as a historical footnote?

It seems to me that it has a considerable bearing on the way democracy functions, at present.; 10:00 PM
Poagao said...: I'm sorry if it seemed like I was accusing you personally of cherry-picking; I wasn't. But in any case, as Nostalgiaphile's reply shows, this is a very emotionally charged issue. Most discussions tend to devolve into passion-filled diatribes and accusations of ignorance and bias on one side or the other. Good luck in sorting it all out.; 10:51 PM
Robert said...: No worries. Sorry that I took it that way.

Something we can all agree on: looking forward to the Blues Festival this weekend. Hope to see y'all there.

Robert; 11:05 PM
Mark said...: Robert said:
"If I knew of KMT thinktanks and conferences, hell, I'd go. I'd read their propaganda. I want to be as objective about this as I can be."

Here's a extremely blue-leaning translator's blog. It's a bit out there, though...; 3:05 AM
Robert said...: Appreciate it Mark. I took a look at it. Some of the stuff got my blood boiling, but it's exactly what I'm looking for.

I've added it to my feed reader.; 5:56 AM
Huw said...: I have to say that I lean toward Poagao's outlook. I've lived here for most of my life, and am thoroughly integrated into Taiwanese society (I came here as a youngster, and have experienced life here on many levels: as a student and later as a teacher, doing business, in relationships and close family ties with locals, and so forth). In my experience, relatively few Taiwanese hold the kind of narrow, overly simplistic "DPP-good, KMT-evil" views that I see espoused on the internet by non-Taiwanese people on a daily basis. Most people (again, in my experience) are broad-minded enough to realise that both parties have big problems; but the fact is that the DPP is the ruling party right now, and they have not done a good job over the last seven years. You wouldn't believe how thoroughly disillusioned the vast majority of people I know who voted for the DPP back in 2000 (and most of them did vote green) have become. Jubilation and hope has been replaced by anger and despair by all but the kind of people who'll support "their" political party regardless of its performance. Many of them are feeling very conflicted right now about how to vote next year.

I've also found that most open-minded Taiwanese do not judge the present-day KMT or its offshoots on the way it was run in the past. We're living in the present, after all, not the days of martial law (which I recall all to well). When I read some of the daily foreigners' blogs ranting about how dastardly and evil and corrupt the KMT is (I'm talking about the present, remember - not the KMT of old, whose reprehensible past actions I am all to ready to criticise myself), I shake my head in wonder, as it simply doesn't reflect the views of the Taiwanese I have lived amongst for so many years. I really think that a measure of objectivity is called for here: continuous over-simplification and selective criticism to suit one's political leanings just isn't very helpful in furthering frank and unbiased debate on the current situation here in Taiwan, in my opinion.; 1:55 PM
Robert said...: I think you're right on for the most part HUW. I've written several times about the things I've learned living with a Taiwanese family and the conversations I've had with my girlfriend and my friends here. It's not as cut-and-dry as even I, up until recently, thought.

Yet, I think you oversimplify the vast majority of the foreign bloggers perspective -- the blogs I read, at least. Just look at the shear quantity of DPP-critical posts coming from very pro-green bloggers lately, and you'll see that a lot of their anti-Blue sentiments are counterbalanced by a healthy dose of consternation when it comes to the way the DPP is conducting itself.

I'll say again, a lot of people can't bring themselves to support the KMT solely because the "past" isn't the past. Certain aspects of the past are playing a key role in things that are taking place right now (like the party assets they are so reluctant to give up).