Retired army general Yu Pei-chen (于北辰) on Friday announced on Facebook that he was leaving the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). POP Radio politics talk show host Chiu Ming-yu (邱明玉) said that she has heard that Yu might run as an independent candidate for city councilor in this year’s local elections.
Instead of running as an independent candidate for the Taoyuan City Council, Yu could be the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) candidate for Taoyuan mayor. According to news reports, DPP internal polling shows that, despite having been born into a KMT-supporting military family, voters view Yu as level-headed and reasonable.
Yu has previously said that he decided to leave military social groups after some of his former comrades in the army said that if Taiwan were handed over to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army or the Chinese Communist Party, it would be governed better than it is under the DPP.
Yu said that this kind of thinking completely contravenes the oath of service to the nation that those in the military take when they join.
Yu caught the attention of online commentators and independent voters after he said that he is a member of the Republic of China “party” and supports any democratically elected government or president.
Yu, together with a number of enlightened current and former military officers, have radically improved the public’s impression of the military and established its position as an independent institution, rather than the KMT’s private army.
A great many members of the military are highly principled and share Yu’s views.
Like former general Sun Li-jen (孫立人), Yu shares the view that the military is a politically neutral institution that belongs to the nation. If the KMT is unable or unwilling to draw upon Yu’s leadership and experience, the DPP should grasp the opportunity with both hands.
Teng Hon-yuan is a university professor.
Translated by Edward Jones
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS