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.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS