The controversy over Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential hopeful Hung Hsiu-chu’s (洪秀柱) master’s degree continues, with some now questioning whether she is able to continue her candidacy.
I do not care if Hung fails in her bid. I care about the KMT’s behavior in this debacle. How has Hung been able to muddle along in the KMT for 20 years with a questionable master’s degree — and even be appointed as the party’s presidential candidate? Is it really only because of her loyalty?
I also worry about Hung’s political views and that the party’s top leadership are giving them their tacit approval, although, because some of her statements have been a bit extreme, some party comrades have asked her to change her tone and wrap her views in prettier language. Just like she did with her master’s degree.
The most astonishing of Hung’s views is that she wants to abandon the US. When talking about a potential visit to the US, she demanded that Washington accord her higher-level treatment than what Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson and presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received during her recent visit. What qualifications does she have to make such demands?
When she finally rejected the idea of visiting the US, she said she felt “repelled by the idea of going there” and that it would be better if she “beckoned the Americans to come here” to talk to her. Not even Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), who is not very fond of the US, would dare say something like that.
The response from the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) has been very rational, expressing the US’ goodwill, but Hung’s stance on a visit is insincere and keeps changing. She even said that she is playing coquettish. How can a presidential candidate behave like that in important international matters?
The Republic of China (ROC) has always been in the camp of the free world together with the US and the UK. No matter how much President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) leans toward China, he still would not dare badmouth the US in public. However, Hung’s sharp policy turnabout has not received the slightest criticism from the party’s top leadership. Is this the precursor of a coming KMT betrayal of the free world?
Hung’s “one country, same interpretation” stance makes her surrender before the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) even more obvious, although she later said that the “one China” refers to the ROC, because her stance is a bit too barefaced. That means that both Beijing and Taiwan are talking about the ROC. Beijing, of course, does not even acknowledge “one China, different interpretations,” so the idea of Beijing now abandoning the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in favor of the ROC is a bit far-fetched.
In an interview with the China Review News Agency in April, Hung said that China’s M503 flight route offered Taiwan better security and protection, and she even blamed Taiwan for “criticizing China for having a few thousand missiles aimed at Taiwan.”
Not only does this run counter to the government’s position, it also attacks Taiwanese from a Chinese perspective. The KMT has not reiterated its positions on these issues. Perhaps the party is happy that someone dares speak up and throw their lot in with the CCP.
Hung has revealed how the KMT, under the changing international strategic climate, has chosen to abandon the US in favor of China. It is, after all, the Chinese Nationalist Party.
The choice between the US and China is a choice between democracy and dictatorship. Before long, it will become clear whether the KMT is Taiwanese or Chinese, or if it simply has a slave mentality.
Paul Lin is a political commentator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS