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
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
RSS