Sun, May 11, 2025 page8

• Chu’s Nazi remarks a moral evasion

  • By John Cheng
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  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.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Taiwanese lose status after obtaining single-use Chinese passport

  • 2

    KMT chair to meet with Xi, but at a price: source

  • 3

    Jeers as Real Madrid fall 2-1 to Man City

  • 4

    Taiwanese tourists go viral in video during Japan quake

  • 5

    Deterring Taiwan conflict a priority: US