So Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (
As the "official" bagman for Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
Yesterday saw another piece of mendacity from Wang, which cannot go without comment, when he told a group of supporters in Kaohsiung that he would be able to end the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) manipulation of ethnic bias in elections.
The problem with this statement is that it is not the DPP which manipulated ethnic bias but the pan-blue camp. When the KMT arrived here from China it had a simple policy of excluding Taiwanese from power. When it realized that it would have to fill its thinning ranks with some Taiwanese, it adopted the age-old tactic of imperialism from the Romans to the British: divide and rule.
The main opposition to the KMT's monopoly of power came from the Hoklo-speaking gentry, outraged at their exclusion from power on "their" island as well as the iniquities of the land-reform compensation system. The KMT was able to counter Hoklo demands for majority rule by manipulating ethnic difference to its advantage. Basically it intimated to Mainlanders that the Hoklo were ungrateful savages who would push them into the sea should the KMT ever lose power -- an opinion the vast majority retain to this day, hence their post-presidential election trauma.
It also suggested to the Hakka that majority rule meant rule by the Hoklo, which, given three centuries of Hoklo-Hakka rivalry, would likely be detrimental to Hakka interests. Much the same pitch was made to the Aborigines for whom there was little love lost toward Hoklo or Hakka. The KMT's clever strategy was to make the native minorities believe that they would be very much worse off under majority rule, and only the KMT could guarantee some sort of level playing field between the different ethnicities.
Such a strategy gave the KMT a lockhold on between 30 and 35 percent of the electorate, and in communities which, because of their more tightly knit nature, were actually rather more easy to mobilize than the Hoklo themselves, the KMT only needed the support of one in four. This it managed to do by playing the "class" card.
It was central to the alien KMT's ideology, and the cultural indoctrination that succeeded "retrocession" that everything Taiwanese was crass and its own imposed culture was superior. Aspirational Taiwanese were encouraged to identify with the KMT's "metropolitan" and see anything rooted in a specifically Taiwanese identity as backward. Many of them did and do, resulting in wide middle-class Hoklo support for the KMT. It is, of course, false consciousness, in the Marxian sense, but none the less powerful for that.
This KMT strategy worked well in the past and still does, though it is fraying a little at the cuffs. Every election campaign sees the KMT criticize the DPP for ethnic campaigning, not because the DPP has been doing anything of the sort, but really as a message to remind the minority voters of the "threat" majority rule might pose. It's a dirty little tactic, but then the KMT is a dirty little party.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the