In the animal kingdom and the world of insects, perhaps the easiest way to distinguish one species from another, beyond the external form, is to look at their DNA or listen to the sounds they make. The meow of the cat is, for example, worlds apart from the dog’s bark.
In the world of politics, if one seeks to differentiate one party from another, aside from the parties’ names, the most important way to tell the difference is each respective party’s policies, ideas and trajectories.
On the surface, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) go by different names and seem not to resemble one another when viewed from a distance. Just as with rabbits, when the buck and doe are stationary, they are easy to tell apart, but when they run, they are virtually indistinguishable, so it is with the KMT and the CCP.
Outside of election season, the two parties share many similarities. During election season, the similarities stand out all the more. What DNA exactly do they share?
For starters, they are both political parties with the word “Chinese” in their names.
Second, they were both founded in China.
Third, early leaders and members of both cut their teeth and were trained at the Whampoa Military Academy, with examples being former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who served as the academy’s first commandant, and former Chinese premier Zhou Enlai (周恩來), who was an instructor.
Next, they both promote concepts such as the “one China principle,” “one country, two systems” and the “1992 consensus.” All of these ideas say that Taiwan is a part of China, and although they try to dress the idea up in different ways, they are all essentially saying the same thing. The KMT promotes the idea of the so-called “1992 consensus” — supposedly a tacit agreement between the CCP and KMT that they both agree on the principle of “one China,” but agree to disagree on what “China” means — which was never a consensus.
However, in doing so, the KMT falls into the trap of the preamble of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, which says that “Taiwan is part of the sacred territory of the People’s Republic of China.”
They both oppose “Taiwanese independence.” Yet no specific definition is ever given for what constitutes Taiwanese independence — whether saying the Republic of China (ROC) or Taiwan is not part of China, or electing a president by about 23 million Taiwanese — all can be viewed as Taiwanese independence.
However, the presidential election is the most powerful demonstration that the ROC or Taiwan is already an independent country with its own voters and territory, which does not include China.
Also, they both hope the KMT presidential candidate will be elected tomorrow. This is because the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has always opposed the CCP and seems to be pro-US and anti-communist. On the other hand, the KMT often views the situation from the CCP’s perspective and acts pro-China and anti-US.
Lastly, they both deny that the CCP is interfering in Taiwan’s elections.
The KMT and the CCP share several similarities, including their political approaches, stances and direction. They even originated from the same place and support the same presidential candidate.
When they sound so identical, it is no wonder it is so hard to discern one from the other, and easy to believe that these creatures have identical DNA.
Chuang Sheng-rong is a lawyer.
Translated by Chien Yan-ru
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
RSS