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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS