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.
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
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS