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
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS