In the animal kingdom and the world of insects, perhaps the easiest way to distinguish one species from another, beyond the external form, is to look at their DNA or listen to the sounds they make. The meow of the cat is, for example, worlds apart from the dog’s bark.
In the world of politics, if one seeks to differentiate one party from another, aside from the parties’ names, the most important way to tell the difference is each respective party’s policies, ideas and trajectories.
On the surface, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) go by different names and seem not to resemble one another when viewed from a distance. Just as with rabbits, when the buck and doe are stationary, they are easy to tell apart, but when they run, they are virtually indistinguishable, so it is with the KMT and the CCP.
Outside of election season, the two parties share many similarities. During election season, the similarities stand out all the more. What DNA exactly do they share?
For starters, they are both political parties with the word “Chinese” in their names.
Second, they were both founded in China.
Third, early leaders and members of both cut their teeth and were trained at the Whampoa Military Academy, with examples being former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who served as the academy’s first commandant, and former Chinese premier Zhou Enlai (周恩來), who was an instructor.
Next, they both promote concepts such as the “one China principle,” “one country, two systems” and the “1992 consensus.” All of these ideas say that Taiwan is a part of China, and although they try to dress the idea up in different ways, they are all essentially saying the same thing. The KMT promotes the idea of the so-called “1992 consensus” — supposedly a tacit agreement between the CCP and KMT that they both agree on the principle of “one China,” but agree to disagree on what “China” means — which was never a consensus.
However, in doing so, the KMT falls into the trap of the preamble of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, which says that “Taiwan is part of the sacred territory of the People’s Republic of China.”
They both oppose “Taiwanese independence.” Yet no specific definition is ever given for what constitutes Taiwanese independence — whether saying the Republic of China (ROC) or Taiwan is not part of China, or electing a president by about 23 million Taiwanese — all can be viewed as Taiwanese independence.
However, the presidential election is the most powerful demonstration that the ROC or Taiwan is already an independent country with its own voters and territory, which does not include China.
Also, they both hope the KMT presidential candidate will be elected tomorrow. This is because the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has always opposed the CCP and seems to be pro-US and anti-communist. On the other hand, the KMT often views the situation from the CCP’s perspective and acts pro-China and anti-US.
Lastly, they both deny that the CCP is interfering in Taiwan’s elections.
The KMT and the CCP share several similarities, including their political approaches, stances and direction. They even originated from the same place and support the same presidential candidate.
When they sound so identical, it is no wonder it is so hard to discern one from the other, and easy to believe that these creatures have identical DNA.
Chuang Sheng-rong is a lawyer.
Translated by Chien Yan-ru
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS