The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators.
President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities.
Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force, those who traveled to an enemy country to secretly meet with officials engaged in “united front” operations against Taiwan should face legal consequences.
Backed by the CCP, the pro-unification camp has launched an assault on the nation, aiming to paralyze the government. They claim to fight dictatorship, yet openly embrace dictators.
The KMT and TPP have provided “mutual legal assistance” by expressing support for corruption and document forgery, shamelessly gathering to pressure and threaten the judiciary.
They opened a back door for the CCP within the legislature — yet they accuse the anti-CCP pan-green camp of being “green communists.”
The KMT ruled Taiwan under martial law for nearly half a century, yet today the party’s elites travel to China and court CCP officials.
Meanwhile, some of their party members and staffers are facing legal consequences for allegedly forging signatures from deceased people in recall petitions targeting their political rivals, yet they shamelessly vow to “fight against dictatorship.”
Does the judiciary owe preferential treatment to the KMT and the TPP?
KMT Taipei chapter secretary Yao Fu-wen (姚富文) and secretary-general Chu Wen-ching (初文卿) have denied any wrongdoing, saying they obtained the petition documents from the KMT Youth League, but how could the Youth League have accessed the party’s register of members?
Last year, the KMT and the TPP jointly pushed through amendments to the Public Officials Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法), tightening the requirements for petitions used to initiate the recall of elected officials.
The amended law included harsher penalties, stipulating that anyone found guilty of using another person’s identification or forging documents for a recall petition could face up to five years in prison or a fine of up to NT$1 million (US$30,745). They are protesting the legal consequences of contravening the very law they helped create.
They not only refused to admit their wrongdoing, but also surrounded the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office.
Nearly 95 percent of the petitions submitted by civil groups leading recall campaigns targeting KMT lawmakers comply with regulations, while 40 percent of the KMT’s recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party lawmakers have contravened the rules, strongly indicating systematic document forgery.
Politicians tied to a scam syndicate stood on Ketagalan Boulevard in an attempt to deceive the public, insult the president, incite hatred against the government and create confrontation.
This mass recall campaign amounts to a civil war on democracy and culture. If Taiwan can get through the transition period, the country would see 100 years of prosperity.
Taiwanese must not tolerate or turn a blind eye to the opposition parties’ vicious acts. They should come forward and recall these lawmakers.
Chu Meng-hsiang is a former deputy secretary-general of the Lee Teng-hui Foundation.
Translated by Fion Khan
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