In yesterday’s Taipei Times (May 10, page 8), four powerful pieces laid bare the appalling depth of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu’s (朱立倫) moral and political misjudgement. In his now-infamous remark comparing President William Lai’s (賴清德) government to Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime, Chu has not only embarrassed Taiwan internationally, but betrayed the very democratic values he claims to defend.
Each of the four authors deserves commendation for their clarity and precision in dissecting this disgrace.
The Taipei Times editorial (“KMT does not represent Taiwan”) rightly focused on the moral gravity of Chu’s language, calling it a distortion of historical trauma that “crosses a line of universal values.” It said that by equating a democratic government with genocidal fascism, Chu trivializes one of the darkest chapters in human history while cynically manipulating fear for short-term political gain.
Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Wu Pei-yi (吳沛憶, “Chu undermining ties with Europe”), writing from her position as chair of the Taiwan European Parliament Amity Association, highlighted the diplomatic damage. Europe is one of Taiwan’s most important partners in upholding democracy and human rights. To invoke Nazism so casually — especially against the backdrop of Germany’s own historical reckoning — is not just tactless, it is dangerously irresponsible. Wu’s call for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to formally reaffirm our values was necessary and timely.
Lo Ming-cheng (駱明正, “Exploiting trauma for political gain”) offered a deeper moral and scholarly reflection. Drawing on trauma studies, he explained why comparisons to the Holocaust must be approached with reverence, not recklessness. Chu’s remarks failed to participate in any meaningful commemorative narrative — neither “working through” nor “acting out” the trauma of genocide, Lo argued. Instead, they reflected a narcissistic impulse to hijack someone else’s suffering for political theater.
Finally, Elliot Yao (姚文邦, “Chu’s use of CCP rhetoric is deplorable”) drove home the point with piercing clarity: Chu’s rhetoric did not just echo authoritarianism — it borrowed wholesale from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) playbook. His accusation that foreign embassies were “interfering in internal affairs” is the same tired line Beijing uses to dismiss international concerns over Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Taiwan. For the head of Taiwan’s main opposition party to adopt this language is as revealing as it is revolting.
If Chu truly believes the opposition in Taiwan is being persecuted — and to be clear, I do not share that belief — why reach back 80 years to Nazi Germany to make his case? Why dredge up one of the most horrific chapters of European history when a real, present-day example of political repression lies just across the Taiwan Strait?
Why not point to the CCP? Why not invoke the brutal suppression of dissent in China, where no opposition party is even allowed to exist, and where a single comment online can turn someone into a target for persecution? Why not mention the 47 democracy advocates in Hong Kong — jailed for up to 10 years merely for organizing a pre-election primary? Or the lawyers and rights activists in China who “disappeared” after the 709 crackdown, many of whom were tortured or held incommunicado for months? Or the citizen journalists such has Zhang Zhan (張展), sentenced to four years in prison for reporting on the early days of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan?
Had Chu cited those examples, he might not have earned agreement — but he might have earned a measure of respect, for having the clarity to recognize where the true danger lies and the courage to name it.
However, he did not, and that omission speaks volumes.
Instead of condemning the regime that silences dissent through intimidation, surveillance, forced confessions and long prison terms, Chu turned his outrage inward — targeting the democratic institutions of his own country.
He compared a historical monstrosity to an unfounded allegation. He looked far across continents but not close across the Strait. He confronted the tolerant — but not the tyrannical.
Why? Because offending Taiwan’s democratic allies is safe. Confronting Beijing, the regime threatening Taiwan’s sovereignty and jailing dissenters as we speak — that carries risk.
That is not just offensive. That is cowardice. It is hypocrisy.
Taiwan’s democracy is imperfect, as all democracies are. However, to preserve it, we must expect more from those who seek to lead it. The KMT — and the nation — deserve a better opposition leader than one who borrows language from the CCP and trauma from Nazi Germany, all to score political points at home.
John Cheng is a retired businessman from Hong Kong now residing in Taiwan.
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
RSS