Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition.
The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions, the party poured fuel on the fire, deflecting blame and accusing President William Lai (賴清德) of running a dictatorship. Ironically, its response has only underlined Taiwanese disgust for the party’s actions over the past year, adding further fuel to the recall campaigns.
KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) said Sung’s action was merely “the use of irony against the DPP’s vicious dictatorship,” while further inflaming tensions by branding the DPP “green communists” intent on silencing all opposition.
It was only in the face of significant criticism from domestic and especially foreign sources — with the German Institute Taipei saying it was “shocked” to see the use of Nazi symbolism for political aims and Israeli Representative to Taiwan Maya Yaron posting a video expressing horror at the use of such political symbols — that Chu changed his tone.
“Fascist and Nazi dictatorships are universally condemned, as are communist dictatorships, all of which the KMT firmly opposes,” he said later, seeking not only to protect the KMT’s image, but also to burnish its “anti-communist” credentials in the face of growing public anger over its perceived pro-China actions.
As Huang Wei-ping (黃惟冰) wrote of Chu in an op-ed published on Thursday in the Chinese-language Liberty Times (the sister paper of the Taipei Times), it is astonishing that a well-educated intellectual and chairman of a major party in Taiwan chose not to definitively draw a line between Sung’s actions and his party.
As many commentators have pointed out, it was not the first time the KMT has invoked Nazi imagery in a deeply inappropriate way. During the presidential election in 2004, the party took out a full-page newspaper advertisement showing a picture of Adolf Hitler in a Nazi uniform with the words: “Change the President, End A-bian’s [former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁)] Dictatorship.” While it apologized to the Jewish community, it did not do so to Chen.
Underlying the KMT’s grotesque portrayals of the DPP as dictators is the deeper reality of a party unable to come to terms with a Taiwanese electorate that has little interest in its pro-China ideology. In today’s Taiwan, policies that seek to protect its sovereignty in the face of Beijing’s threats are not “green communism” — they are mainstream democratic choices.
Asked about his actions drawing international condemnation, Sung said: “This is China, it is not a foreign land,” showing not only a complete lack of contrition and blatant disrespect toward other countries, but also, by calling the nation “China,” highlighted just how out of touch the KMT often is with mainstream Taiwanese society.
Keelung City Councilor Jiho Chang (張之豪) wrote on social media that Sung is “one of the 3.2 percent in Taiwan who self-identify as Chinese... He represents a fringe, troubled political minority — not Taiwan.”
So long as the KMT continues to pander to fringes, while promoting unpopular policies perceived as harming Taiwan, it will face strong resistance from mainstream society — a reality reflected in the widespread support for the recall campaigns targeting its legislators. The driving force behind these campaigns is not “DPP authoritarianism,” but widespread frustration with the KMT’s deference to Beijing and its role in obstructing efforts to build a unified domestic front against Chinese aggression.
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS