Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang’s (黃國昌) so-called “walk and read” event on Saturday last week was a reckless, thinly veiled political stunt that defied legal norms, endangered public order and left eight police officers injured — including one hospitalized.
Although packaged as a benign public stroll in support of former TPP chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), the event bore all the marks of a street rally: coordinated mobilization, slogans, traffic disruption and direct confrontations with police.
Footage from the event showed Huang with his arm around a police inspector’s neck. Rather than accept responsibility, Huang offered a defense so implausible it borders on farce: The officer was “smiling,” therefore it could not have been a chokehold. A digitally manipulated image was circulated showing the officer smiling — a crude attempt to reframe facts through fabrication.
Whether coordinated or opportunistic, the incident speaks volumes about the TPP’s willingness to distort reality when the facts are damning.
It was not an isolated incident. Once hailed as a leader of the Sunflower movement, Huang abandoned principle for performance long ago. He left the New Power Party amid scandal, including leaked recordings of internal manipulation, and resurfaced as Ko’s chief political enforcer, steeped in grievance politics. His brand now rests on a cynical inversion: break the law, then cry persecution; provoke chaos, then posture as the rogue dissident.
Nowhere is this more dangerous than in his defense of Ko. Ko is on trial over allegedly misappropriating more than NT$90 million (US$2.94 million). Huang, instead of respecting judicial independence, chooses to whip up crowds, stage public confrontations and brand the indictment as political repression. This is a calculated attempt to pressure the judiciary.
The behavior, coming from a party chairman and declared aspirant for mayor of New Taipei City, is nothing short of disqualifying. Mayors are stewards of public order. Huang is on video physically confronting police and leading rallies that result in injuries, while wielding a persecution narrative like a shield. Is this the leadership that New Taipei City wants? A man who treats legal enforcement as tyranny and his own impunity as a civil right?
Discrediting institutions while playing the victim is embedded in the TPP’s DNA. Rather than take accountability, Huang cries foul. Rather than uphold the law, he undermines it. Rather than preserve democratic institutions, he borrows from the authoritarian playbook: weaponizing freedoms to delegitimize the very system that enables them.
A party built on clean politics and technocratic promise now excels at street brawls dressed up as book clubs and artificial intelligence fakes dressed up as truth. Law enforcement is recast as persecution. Investigations are smeared as witch hunts. Objective standards become tools of oppression. The inversion plays supporters for fools, crosses boundaries and corrodes the lifeblood of Taiwan’s democracy.
Huang is a man of chaos, rehearsing power through confrontation. If this is the preview, the full act as mayor would be dangerous.
What played out on the streets of Taipei was a performance designed to blur the line between activism and anarchy, and to cry persecution when that line is crossed.
If evidence shows Huang violated the law, he must face consequences. Transparency, not appeasement, is the only antidote. Without it, Huang will ride higher on grievance, wielding his favorite banner — persecution — as a shield and a weapon.
Taiwan cannot afford to let the law become optional, especially not for those using it as a prop while trampling it underfoot. New Taipei City does not need a mayor who thinks chaos is a leadership style or that playing the victim is the highest form of civic duty.
John Cheng is a retired businessman from Hong Kong living in Taiwan.
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS