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.
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Victory in conflict requires mastery of two “balances”: First, the balance of power, and second, the balance of error, or making sure that you do not make the most mistakes, thus helping your enemy’s victory. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has made a decisive and potentially fatal error by making an enemy of the Jewish Nation, centered today in the State of Israel but historically one of the great civilizations extending back at least 3,000 years. Mind you, no Israeli leader has ever publicly declared that “China is our enemy,” but on October 28, 2025, self-described Chinese People’s Armed Police (PAP) propaganda
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS