On Wednesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) drew parallels between the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) under President William Lai (賴清德) now and the fascism of Germany under Adolf Hitler. The German Institute Taipei, Berlin’s de facto embassy in Taiwan, expressed on social media its “deep disappointment and concern” over the comments.
“We must state unequivocally: Taiwan today is in no way comparable to the tyranny of National Socialism,” it said, referring to the Nazi Party.
“We are disappointed and concerned to learn about the inappropriate comparison between the atrocities of the Nazi regime and the current political context in Taiwan,” the Israel Economic and Cultural Office in Taipei said.
Chu remained defiant, saying foreign governments should not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, and insisting that his comparison was legitimate given Lai’s “persecution” of the opposition.
The KMT has drawn increasing criticism after a series of appalling behavior, including a Nazi salute by a KMT Youth League member, inflammatory rhetoric at a rally on April 26 and frequent use of politically charged slurs such as “green Nazis” and “green commies.” Now it has stooped so low as to invoke historical symbols rooted in atrocities. By equating Lai’s leadership with Hitler’s genocide, Chu not only trivializes the profound trauma endured by those Hitler targeted, but also crosses a line of universal values.
In a democratic society, people are free to choose their political affiliations. However, placing faith in a party whose rhetoric is so misleading that other nations feel compelled to condemn it is another matter entirely. This blind partisanship stems from two main factors:
First is the poisoned legacy of former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國). Under their authoritarian rule, generations of Taiwanese were indoctrinated to revere the KMT and view indigenous cultures as inferior, while casting those in opposition as enemies of the state. The era of state-sponsored political education instilled a deep-seated bias, leading many to develop a lasting animosity toward the DPP.
Second, as Taiwan stands on the front line of China’s cognitive warfare, people are increasingly exposed to its propaganda on social media. Without adequate media literacy or critical thinking, many fall prey to ideological traps, which manipulate public perception by amplifying fears of war with China and portraying the DPP as a “troublemaker” bent on provoking conflict. Fueled by this orchestrated bigotry, people tend to blame the DPP, regardless of evidence, context or nuance.
Chu’s actions were nothing more than a desperate attempt to cling to power and relevance. He was not targeting “deep blue” voters, but sought to sway independents. By resorting to incendiary labels such as “Hitler” and “fascism,” the KMT seeks to weaponize anti-DPP sentiment, using it as a smokescreen to obscure its own policy failures and misconduct — such as forgery in signature-gathering for recall petitions — and as a banner to unite independent voters against the DPP, which is what the KMT desperately needs in face of the opposing recall movement.
However, Taiwanese are neither ignorant nor apathetic when a political party crosses the line. The Sunflower movement, the recall efforts and the 419 rally share a common trait: They were not initiated by politicians, but by ordinary people seeking to raise awareness and rally the public against the looming threat posed by China. These grassroots efforts reflect the deep civic awareness and democratic resilience of Taiwanese.
Taiwanese have long been commended for their kindness and warmth. However, such generosity should not be squandered on politicians who serve only their own interests or those of the CCP. Chu can remain unapologetic, but Taiwan should rally behind the recall petitions targeting KMT legislators and send a clear message to the global community: The KMT does not represent Taiwan.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS