Hijacking victimhood
In any functioning democracy, being in the opposition does not grant you immunity from the law — nor does it entitle you to hijack the language of victimhood. Yet that is precisely what the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is doing.
If KMT members are under investigation for signature forgery in recall petitions, the right response is to cooperate with the legal process — not to throw tantrums in the streets. Instead, the KMT has chosen to weaponize the word “persecution” as if being investigated is the same as being oppressed. It is not. Investigations are not convictions. If they are innocent, let the courts say so, but wrapping oneself in the persecution flag to evade accountability is political cowardice — and an insult to real victims of political oppression.
Worse still is KMT Chairman Eric Chu’s (朱立倫) reckless accusation that President William Lai (賴清德) is “becoming a dictator.” That is not political rhetoric — that is character assassination masquerading as protest. Calling someone a dictator is not a slogan you get to wave around when the legal process does not go your way. It is a charge that, in a democracy, must be backed by evidence — not bitterness. If the KMT believes the president has crossed a constitutional line, they should take it to court, not to a megaphone.
Where exactly was this outrage when Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) appointee Ho Jen-chieh (何仁傑), a former aide of then-minister of foreign affairs Joseph Wu (吳釗燮), was arrested and detained for spying for China? Did the DPP scream political persecution then? No. It took swift and sober action, because national security and rule of law matter more than party loyalty.
The KMT’s circus-like pressure campaign on the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office is not only unbecoming — it is dangerous. Undermining judicial independence for political drama corrodes the very democratic norms they claim to defend. At a time when Taiwan faces mounting threats from across the Strait, the last thing the country needs is a party more committed to stirring internal division than defending national unity.
In truth, what the KMT is doing is not resistance — it is regression. It is a cynical attempt to cast themselves as martyrs while distracting from potential wrongdoing — but this is not theater.
This is Taiwan’s democracy, and they should treat it with the respect it deserves. If not, they expose themselves not as defenders of democracy, but as opportunists willing to burn the house down just because they are not holding the keys.
John Cheng
Taichung
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.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS