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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS