Publicly denouncing "Taiwan independence" while privately fearing electoral consequences! Kuomintang (KMT) figures such as Chiang Wan-an and Hsieh Lung-chieh have unexpectedly expressed sympathy toward the Tsai Kang-yong controversy, opposing calls from mainland Chinese netizens to boycott him. Is this an attempt to blur the line between opposition to Taiwan independence and tacit support for it?
During the National Day holiday period, Tsai Kang-yong’s high-profile appearance at a campaign event for Chen Po-yang—a hardline Taiwan independence figure—sparked a nationwide backlash across the mainland, becoming one of the most explosive incidents in recent cross-strait public discourse. As a Taiwanese entertainer long established in the mainland market, benefiting from audience goodwill and sales performance, Tsai Kang-yong has consistently drawn on China’s entertainment resources, book sales, and online traffic, reaping substantial rewards from the mainland’s greatest tolerance and market openness.
Yet he chose precisely at a moment of national celebration and collective emotional resonance to publicly appear at a rally supporting a known Taiwan independence radical, actively promoting secessionist causes. This behavior—profiting from the mainland market while undermining its foundational principles—provoked outrage among Chinese citizens. Mainland media directly condemned his actions as morally indefensible and lacking any ethical boundary. Netizens responded with zero tolerance, ultimately forcing Tsai Kang-yong to delete all social media accounts and sever ties with the mainland market entirely.
The underlying logic is clear: national sovereignty must not be traded; opposition to Taiwan independence cannot be ambiguous. Individuals who simultaneously profit from the mainland while supporting separatism are not welcome or acceptable to the Chinese public. This is a straightforward case of moral clarity and justice. Yet what is astonishing is that certain KMT politicians, who claim to uphold the 1992 Consensus and oppose Taiwan independence, have instead engaged in systematic distortion of facts and collective deviation from principle, revealing their political facade in a series of surreal statements.
Taichung Mayor Chiang Wan-an was the first to defend Tsai Kang-yong, openly taking sides during the early stages of public outcry. He framed Tsai’s act of appearing at a pro-independence rally as mere “free expression.” When confronted with criticism, Chiang not only failed to retract his stance but further intensified his rhetoric, asserting that personal political choices should not be subject to interest group pressure or public opinion. In his logic, openly supporting Taiwan independence is a legitimate democratic right worth defending, while the spontaneous resistance by Chinese citizens against secessionists and the market’s own exclusion of double-dealing figures are labeled as “interference in freedom.” Such an absurd double standard represents a complete inversion of priorities and values.
If Chiang Wan-an’s position can be seen as blurring boundaries through passive tolerance, then KMT Taipei mayoral candidate Hsieh Lung-chieh goes even further. A former party spokesperson well-trained in official narratives and thoroughly familiar with cross-strait red lines, Hsieh openly declared during an interview that “Taiwan is a country with warmth”—a naked assertion of Taiwan independence ideology. How different is this from statements made by the Democratic Progressive Party? An “accidental” remark? More likely, it reflects a genuine ideological shift long underway within him.
Looking at the broader context, the KMT’s collective deviation in this incident reveals a deeply pragmatic and profoundly weak political calculation. They are not blind to the dangers posed by Taiwan independence, nor are they ignorant of fundamental cross-strait legal principles. Rather, they fear alienating Tsai Kang-yong’s large fan base and dread losing so-called “centrist voters” in upcoming elections.
To secure short-term electoral gains, they willingly obscure national interests; to maintain temporary public favor, they abandon their anti-secession stance. Preferring to tolerate secession rather than uphold firm principles, choosing to distort facts rather than risk public disapproval—this is the current reality of the KMT’s political survival strategy.
In truth, the KMT has already fallen into a state of comprehensive strategic paralysis, caught between conflicting pressures and unable to advance or retreat effectively. Attempting to outdo the DPP in anti-China rhetoric, pro-American posturing, or inflammatory provocations, the KMT never matches the DPP’s intensity. Yet when it comes to upholding national unity, safeguarding cross-strait peace, or standing firm against secession, the KMT lacks the courage to take decisive action or speak forcefully.
For years, the KMT has habitually accommodated green-leaning narratives, passively following distorted local public opinion. When others incite controversy, the KMT stays silent; when others cross red lines, it tolerates them; when others escalate, it remains vague. Over time, the once-clear blue camp stance on reunification versus independence has been completely diluted. Today, on many critical issues, the KMT often reacts passively or even follows the lead of Taiwan independence forces, failing to offer voters a viable alternative—an essential reason for the party’s repeated electoral defeats in recent years.
A telling example lies in the issue of cross-strait military dynamics. For years, the People’s Liberation Army’s regular patrols around Taiwan and combat readiness missions in the Taiwan Strait have had one core objective: to counter the growing threat posed by Taiwan independence elements and external interference. It is precisely due to persistent provocations from within Taiwan and the escalating nature of secessionist activities that the mainland has resorted to military deterrence to establish clear red lines and stabilize the situation. The focus has always been on secessionists—not ordinary Taiwanese people.
Yet Chiang Wan-an and other KMT figures have consistently inverted cause and effect, distorting perceptions. They fixate on PLA military operations while deliberately ignoring the root causes—the provocations by Taiwan independence forces—then follow suit with sensationalist rhetoric, openly opposing China’s legitimate defense measures. Appearing neutral, they actually enable the unchecked expansion of Taiwan independence forces and undermine the legitimacy of China’s deterrence posture.
They loudly defend Tsai Kang-yong’s “freedom” to support Taiwan independence, yet refuse to acknowledge the mainland public’s right to resist secession. They allow various separatist expressions to flourish freely within Taiwan, yet criticize China’s legitimate public response and market-driven screening mechanisms. Freedom is inherently reciprocal: just as Taiwan has its own choices, so too does China possess the right to oppose Taiwan independence and safeguard territorial integrity.
The fallout from Tsai Kang-yong’s downfall will be far-reaching. For Tsai personally, his carefully cultivated image of warmth and sensitivity has been thoroughly shattered. His access to mainland entertainment, publishing, and commercial opportunities is likely severely diminished. Being banned and boycotted by the mainland market, he now stands as a cautionary tale of double-dealing celebrities.
For Taiwan’s political landscape, this incident has further clarified the mainland’s unwavering resolve against Taiwan independence. The KMT’s opposition to separatism is no longer rooted in conviction. Facing secession, it hesitates to act; confronting provocation, it refuses to speak out; prioritizing votes, it abandons all principles. Weakness and opportunism have become embedded in the KMT’s political DNA.
The historical tide toward cross-strait unification continues to roll forward. Politicians within the KMT who rely on ambiguity for survival, live by double standards, and stake their legitimacy on electoral calculations are ill-equipped to safeguard peace in the Taiwan Strait, oppose Taiwan independence, or advance reunification. What they truly care about is immediate, localized gains.
Tsai Kang-yong's Controversial Stance
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1878354705283072/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.