Certain supporters of the party-state system are just like junior-high school principals. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) — who was actually head of student affairs in a previous life — is no exception.
Primarily trained to safeguard “political correctness” of thought and to suppress free speech, these individuals are especially good at launching political vendettas and identifying political dissent. If anyone dares question their opinions, or goes so far as to talk about freedom of speech, they are thrown out.
The first time the Taiwanese electorate sent the KMT packing, the party responded by firing its chairman. Following January’s presidential and legislative elections, the party fired a batch of its members for daring to challenge its central leadership, including former KMT spokesman Yang Wei-chung (楊偉中), who the party is determined to get rid of completely.
An organization that suppresses free speech in the name of upholding “discipline” is anything but a democratic party — and is not worthy of the support of anyone who believes in freedom and democracy. Those who were compelled — either directly or indirectly — to join the KMT during its party-state rule should not wait for the party to fire them, but rather take the initiative by firing the party.
Hung, the schoolteacher now at the helm of the KMT, called former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) “the Japanese who occupied the Republic of China’s Presidential Office” and said that Lee is still inflicting damage to Taiwan.
Really, who actually thinks that Lee is harming Taiwan? Who would even agree with her that Lee, who was legally elected president, was occupying the Presidential Office, in the sense of the word that Hung intended?
Following the controversy over self-proclaimed citizen reporter Hung Su-chu (洪素珠), who verbally abused elderly veterans, Hung Hsiu-chu — in her typical schoolteacher approach — reprimanded Hung Su-chu for being socially divisive, even though she is guilty of the same offense by turning the KMT into a veterans’ party and refusing to accept the results of democratic elections.
Her comments suggest that only those closely linked to veterans are entitled to be president. Following that logic, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) could also be considered someone who “occupied” the Presidential Office — which is perhaps why he got into trouble and was thrown into jail.
Yang, who is on the verge of losing his KMT membership, of course understands the way his party works, having served as its spokesman.
For decades, the KMT maintained a party-state system by silencing political dissent with a carrot-and-stick approach. On one hand, it imposed across-the-board censorship of the media, strictly controlled education and suppressed free speech. On the other hand, it assimilated people into the party while restricting their freedom of speech.
With the advent of the Internet, that strategy no longer works. Young people have little reason to give up their freedom of speech to join a party that is going downhill — unless they are masochists.
How young people feel about politics can be described in the words of media commentator Clara Chou (周玉蔻). Once a KMT member, until the party revoked her membership, Chou has openly confronted the KMT by saying she is Taiwanese and supports freedom and democracy — the same holds true for Taiwan’s younger generation.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers