On the eve of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a statement that provoked unprecedented repudiations among the European diplomats in Taipei.
Chu said during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that what President William Lai (賴清德) has been doing to the opposition is equivalent to what Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, referencing ongoing investigations into the KMT’s alleged forgery of signatures used in recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party legislators.
In response, the German Institute Taipei posted a statement to express its “deep disappointment and concern” regarding how Chu’s words threatened to trivialize the atrocities committed against the victims of the Holocaust, “distorting the memory of the past for political ends.”
The representative offices of France, the Netherlands, and Belgium in Taiwan soon reposted Germany’s statement. The Israel Economic and Cultural Office in Taipei issued an even more direct rebuke, stating that Chu’s “comparisons are deeply offensive to the memory of 6 million Jewish people who suffered and perished.”
Chu’s remarks raise serious objections, as many commentators have pointed out. There is also the need to reflect upon how we develop discourses of past traumas. It is not that we must never draw comparisons between different instances of suffering and injustices; the question is how.
Scholars of trauma narratives have suggested that different modes of commemoration can facilitate or hinder collective healing. Emory University sociologist Xu Bin (徐彬) said that, in the aftermath of a disaster, such as Hurricane Katrina or the 2008 Sichuan Earthquake, the state might be tempted to lean on a “can do” narrative, glossing over the depth of the victims’ suffering and, instead, emphasizing the promise of resilience. This leaves survivors feeling alone and unheard.
Alternatively, Christina Simko, as associate professor of sociology at Williams College, said that an “acting out” narrative, exemplified by the Holocaust Museum or some Sept. 11 speeches, aims to create the social space for a collective re-experiencing of the emotional pains caused by these tragedies. Simko’s research further suggests that, rooted in a deep appreciation of such pains, a “working through” narrative may eventually emerge, which seeks to develop greater compassion for broader human suffering.
If we attempt to discuss the Holocaust in today’s Taiwan, it is our duty to bear witness to the suffering of the 6 million Jewish people who were murdered in the Holocaust, feel the pain the best we can, and only then might we possibly begin to make meaningful comparisons between different atrocities and cultivate a compassionate narrative about how to avoid repeating similar horrors.
Chu’s remarks did not contribute meaningfully to any established narrative of Holocaust trauma — neither the “working through,” nor the “acting out,” nor even the more sanitized “can do” discourse. Moreover, this instance was one of several misappropriations of the Holocaust memory in Taiwan in recent years. In 2016, for the anniversary of Hsinchu Kuang-Fu Senior High School, a class held a Nazi-themed parade. Last month, a KMT Youth League member wore a Nazi armband, held a copy of Mein Kampf and raised Nazi salutes outside the New Taipei City Prosecutors’ Office. These reveal a worrisome lack of historical understanding or sensitivity.
Instead of bearing witness, developing compassion, or even encouraging resilience, these young people and politicians used others’ trauma as a metaphor for their alleged victimization — victimization by mainstream culture, by their political opponents, or by other powers. By reducing others’ traumas to merely a metaphor for their own grievances, these actions serve to erase Jewish people from their own story of suffering and are therefore fundamentally selfish and deeply harmful — even if unintentionally.
It is high time that we cultivate deeper understandings of histories and humbler appreciations of others’ traumas.
Lo Ming-cheng is a professor of sociology at the University of California-Davis.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS