Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) confrontation with Minister of Health and Welfare Chen Shih-chung (陳時中) on Wednesday backfired, with people posting thousands of comments on her Facebook page showing support for the head of the Central Epidemic Command Center — as the KMT once again demonstrated that it is out of touch with the nation.
“I’m with you, minister A-chung (阿中),” many posts read, referring to a common nickname for Chen, while others criticized Cheng, after their heated exchange at a meeting of the legislature’s Social Welfare and Environmental Hygiene Committee.
A group of KMT legislators protested the meeting to review the lifting of a ban on imports of food from five Japanese prefectures implemented after the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant disaster. With Cheng standing in front of the minister, they shouted that the government should stand up to Japan and criticized the center’s COVID-19 policies, saying that “800 people have died from the pandemic and you [Chen] did not take responsibility.”
The minister asked Cheng not to disparage healthcare workers and said that Taiwan’s COVID-19 deaths were relatively few compared with other countries, but the legislator interrupted, saying that deaths in Taiwan were linked to the center’s vaccine policy. A visibly angry Chen called her remarks far-fetched and said she had gone too far. He later said it was unfair to discount people’s efforts to fight COVID-19, adding that she should “look at the world, and think about Taiwan.”
Cheng’s remarks might have been an attempt to shore up support from the pan-blue camp, but they highlight how out of touch the KMT is with Taiwanese and the party’s ignorance about the global COVID-19 situation. The KMT is trying to undermine people’s confidence in the government’s disease prevention policies and often opposes the government just for the sake of it.
In the past two years, the KMT said the government was inhumane for banning mask exports, urging it to donate them to China; claimed the government was blindly expanding mask production to benefit local manufacturers; and often called for Chen to be replaced. The party magnified concerns over the possible adverse reactions to AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine, but later criticized the government for not securing enough doses, while calling on it to import vaccines from China.
KMT legislators are using the same tactics on foreign affairs. KMT Legislator Wu Sz-huai (吳斯懷) last week called South Korean president-elect Yoon Suk-yeol’s vow to increase the deployment of its anti-missile defense system and enhance relations with Japan and the US “inappropriate,” as it provokes China.
KMT Legislator Sra Kacaw (鄭天財) on Wednesday said a proposal to compete at the 2024 Paris Summer Olympics as “Taiwan” should not be put to a referendum, as China would use it as grounds to attack Taiwan. He added that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy made similar policy mistakes leading to the deaths of Ukrainians.
The KMT also called the government’s statements that it would cooperate with US and EU sanctions against Russia over its invasion of Ukraine “meaningless.” A few days later, the KMT changed its tune, saying it supported international efforts to end the war.
With its inability to distinguish friend from foe — urging the government to stand up to Tokyo and stand with Beijing, despite Japan donating millions of COVID-19 vaccine doses, while China repeatedly flies warplanes into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone and blocks the nation’s participation in international organizations — it is no wonder, as recent opinion polls show, the KMT is quickly losing support.
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