A heated conversation between a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Keelung city councilor and a local resident on whether an ammunition depot in the city should be relocated has stirred debate about public attitudes toward national security in Taiwan, and has drawn speculation on the KMT’s cross-strait stance.
After nine soldiers were injured in a blast at the Hsiang Feng military base depot in Keelung on Monday, KMT Keelung City Councilor Lu Mei-ling (呂美玲) on Tuesday visited a local market to hear residents’ opinions with a reporter in toe.
Lu’s suggestion of relocating the depot to Yilan or New Taipei City was met with dissent by a resident in his 60s, surnamed Lai (賴), who said that the depot has been there for decades, protecting people from invasion, and asked: “If it is removed, where would we get ammunition if communist China attacks us?”
Lai said the depot provides ammunition to the navy’s 131st Fleet and artillery at Keelung Harbor, and relocating it would place the ammunition too far away to reach it in time if China suddenly attacked, so the depot must stay, as it is protecting Taiwan.
“Why do you want to have war? Just like the US and Ukraine...” Lu asked. Lai replied: “I do not want a war. It is communist China that wants to wage war against us.” Lu then pointed a finger at him, saying that “communist China does not want to attack, it is you who is asking for it. If the Chinese military had plans to attack Taiwan, they would have done it earlier. You are asking for a beating.”
She also tried to intimidate Lai by saying that “eligibility for military call-up can be up to 75 years old,” and “if a war starts, do not forget that you must fight on the front line,” to which Lai said that he would surely stay and fight the Chinese troops.
In an interview on Thursday, Lu said: “If you [the government] are asking for a beating, we in Keelung want independence. If the Republic of China (ROC) does not take care of Keelung residents, we will ask the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to take care of us.”
Lu on Friday said that Taiwan should not follow in the US’ footsteps and ruin its future, but the KMT said that her remarks contravened its charter and had damaged its reputation. In the evening, Lu apologized for her “slip of the tongue” and resigned from the party.
While the KMT quickly distanced itself from Lu, people noticed that her attitude toward national security and cross-strait relations is not markedly different from that of many higher-ranking KMT figures and pan-blue political parties, as well as Beijing’s stance.
KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) has said that President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) refusal to acknowledge the so-called “1992 consensus” is a “great provocation” to Beijing, and KMT Legislator Shen Chih-hwei (沈智慧) has said that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s frequent reports of Chinese military aircraft entering Taiwan’s air defense identification zone arer provoking Beijing, and that it is eager to stir up cross-strait tensions.
Hon Hai Precision Industry Co founder Terry Gou (郭台銘), who sought the KMT’s presidential nomination earlier this year, wrote in an op-ed piece published by the Washington Post on July 17 that Tsai’s and the DPP’s rejection of the “one-China” framework has greatly aggravated the risk of war.
The KMT’s constant claims that it would safeguard the ROC is concerning, but refusing to highlight the source of the threat to Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific region, and even siding with Beijing in saying that the DPP-led government’s efforts to strengthen national defense and form partnerships with democracies are provocative actions that invite war.
Lu’s blunt “you’re asking for a beating” simply highlights the party’s attitude toward national defense, and her false claim that military call-up includes men up to 75 years old clearly examplifies how disinformation can be used to wage “cognitive warfare” to try to influence the public.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past