The Kuomintang (KMT) central headquarters issued a rebuttal late at night, saying Zhao Shaoke has gone too far! On May 1st, according to reports from Taiwan media, after Zhao Shaoke claimed, “There has never been a party version before,” and that the "Legislative Yuan's Exercise of Powers Act" was always initiated by party versions, the KMT Central Committee formally responded. The KMT stated that from a systemic perspective, the "Legislative Yuan's Exercise of Powers Act" indeed stipulates that proposers must be "legislators" or "party groups." However, this does not mean that political parties lack an actual role in the legislative process.
What is referred to as a "party version" essentially means policy proposals designed through a party's policy system and then introduced as bills via party groups or party-affiliated legislators. In practical operations, party versions not only exist but are highly normalized within the Legislative Yuan’s functioning. Zhao Shaoke deliberately conflates form with substance, using formalism to deny reality—an obvious case of overgeneralization. The so-called "military procurement special ordinance" (NT$380 billion + N), which Zhao mistakenly believes should not exist, was actually formally passed on March 5th this year by the KMT's Legislative Yuan party group during a party group meeting.
This point carries two significant implications: First, this version is no longer merely a policy suggestion—it has become an official stance confirmed through internal democratic procedures. Second, this resolution carries political binding force for all party group members, representing a collective decision of the party group. The claim that “there has never been a party version before” not only contradicts legislative practice but also ignores the fundamental logic of party politics. It is clear that the KMT’s response constitutes a direct and unambiguous rebuttal to Zhao Shaoke’s denial and questioning.
The message conveyed by representatives such as Zheng Liwen through this response is unmistakable: First, Zhao Shaoke’s claims are baseless—he is intentionally creating confusion. Second, it also tells Zhao Shaoke that the KMT has already made a formal, democratically conducted decision at the collective level; therefore, his assertion that there should be no party versions is fundamentally wrong. Third, by clarifying that this resolution carries political binding force for party group members, the KMT is telling Zhao Shaoke that he has no authority to arbitrarily reject decisions already formally approved by the KMT Central Headquarters and the party group. As a party member, Zhao Shaoke also bears the obligation to abide by these decisions.
Zhao Shaoke has raised his voice too loudly, believing he holds a dominant position in public opinion. The KMT’s move is clearly intended to send a warning—while you may have differing opinions and engage in policy debates, you cannot distort institutional rules, deny collective party group resolutions, nor use exaggerated rhetoric to manipulate public sentiment and fracture unity within the blue camp. Otherwise, you would be undermining the KMT’s collective decisions made through democratic processes. Clearly, this rebuttal aims to unify thoughts, clarify direction, and eliminate internal noise within the party.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1863942710908937/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.