So often we hear complaints by politicians that their rivals stir up ethnic tension by appealing to base instincts and Taiwan's history of ethnic discrimination. Occasionally, the "ethnic card" is played among the smaller minorities -- Hakka, Aborigines and marital immigrants -- for less spectacular results. But in election season, as legislators and party activists spit out language both offensive and florid, the chance presents itself to gain greater attention and exploit social inequalities.
KMT Legislator Kung Wen-chi (
Last week Kung attacked President Chen Shui-bian (
Over Chen's two terms, Aboriginal affairs have seen a mixture of genuine concern and indifference. Part of the responsibility for this must lie with the legislature, which -- hardly surprisingly -- has expressed a bipartisan lack of enthusiasm in advancing reform on Aboriginal autonomy and land rights.
But responsibility also lies with Chen's team in the Presidential Office. Top among these is Vice President Annette Lu (
So Kung's criticism can be expected. When he suggested, however, that Chen take after Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and issue a broad apology to Taiwan's Aboriginal peoples, he went over the line. In doing so, Kung not only insulted Chen by misrepresenting his record on Aboriginal issues, he also exploited the misery of Australian Aborigines to advance his career.
Rudd's apology was made in the context of hundreds of years of racist, if not genocidal, Aboriginal policy, and was partly energized by a report detailing the widespread, forcible removal of Aboriginal children from their parents for ideological reasons. It was also made in an environment of widespread opposition to any apology, including from former prime minister John Howard, a number of conservative legislators and media commentators, as well as a large minority of ordinary Australians.
Comparing Chen's eight-year stretch of government to Australia's centuries-old history of mistreatment of Aborigines is ludicrous. If Kung were simply another ignorant and uncouth legislator mouthing off on a touchy subject, then this would not be so noteworthy. But he holds a doctorate from a British university and his thesis was on indigenous people and the media. He cannot be unaware of the horrible experiences of Australian Aborigines -- at the hands of their government, ordinary White Australians and their own miscreant elements -- and of the currency that can be gained through media manipulation.
There are perfectly good reasons why Kung stooped to such demeaning language. The most likely is that if Ma wins the presidential election, Kung will be on the inside track to head the executive-level Council for Indigenous Peoples, the top Aboriginal bureaucracy. Every little attack on the enemy, no matter how cynical, helps this agenda.
And if Kung obtains the most powerful position in the nation that is open to the Aboriginal elite -- in practical terms, anyway -- we can expect that he will continue to do what he has done through most of his career as a Ma acolyte: Take instructions, follow them to the letter and keep his people ignorant of their real history of persecution.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) concludes his fourth visit to China since leaving office, Taiwan finds itself once again trapped in a familiar cycle of political theater. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has criticized Ma’s participation in the Straits Forum as “dancing with Beijing,” while the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) defends it as an act of constitutional diplomacy. Both sides miss a crucial point: The real question is not whether Ma’s visit helps or hurts Taiwan — it is why Taiwan lacks a sophisticated, multi-track approach to one of the most complex geopolitical relationships in the world. The disagreement reduces Taiwan’s
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is visiting China, where he is addressed in a few ways, but never as a former president. On Sunday, he attended the Straits Forum in Xiamen, not as a former president of Taiwan, but as a former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman. There, he met with Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Wang Huning (王滬寧). Presumably, Wang at least would have been aware that Ma had once been president, and yet he did not mention that fact, referring to him only as “Mr Ma Ying-jeou.” Perhaps the apparent oversight was not intended to convey a lack of
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS