In recent days, a fierce storm has erupted within the KMT under the “Cheng Era,” tearing off both its true face and its false mask, leaving everything in plain sight.

First, KMT Central Standing Committee member He Yinglu (a Chinese spouse) criticized Cheng Li-wun, saying that during the party chair election, “Cheng Li-wun guided me to call for unification.” He Yinglu believed Cheng’s “one China” meant “one People’s Republic of China.” This aligns with what the vice chair appointed by Cheng recently told people in mainland China — that Taiwan is merely the “Taiwan Region” of the PRC.

How, then, can the “Cheng Era” KMT simultaneously tell the Taiwanese public that their “one China” refers to “the Republic of China”? They say one thing to one audience, and the opposite to another. It is pure two-faced politics — and the Chinese people will certainly react strongly.

The “Cheng Era” KMT is playing with fire. He Yinglu refuses to play along any longer. After speaking the truth, she was suspended by the Cheng-led party center, and in anger, she resigned and withdrew from the party.

Her anger may also reflect dissatisfaction from the Taiwan Affairs Office—or even from the top leadership in Zhongnanhai. Reading between the lines, one can sense a shift in Beijing’s attitude toward the “Cheng Era” KMT. No longer is the focus on the “1992 Consensus,” but rather on Xi Jinping’s personally endorsed “Taiwan Plan.” Cheng Li-wun and the Ma Ying-jeou faction still think they are living in 1992, still wanting to “play with fire.” The world has changed rapidly—who would still bother with these outdated figures?

From Zhongnanhai’s perspective, who is more important—Cheng Li-wun or Kao Sharyo? Who matters in the geopolitical chessboard of great-power rivalry? Who is merely a disposable pawn? Who is the one climbing onto the shoulders of giants, pointing east and west, disturbing the strategic concentration required for the game?

For this reason, studying and analyzing the true nature and false mask of the “Cheng Era” KMT is no longer so urgent or important. In truth, the Taiwanese people already understand much of the rhetoric and disguises used by the KMT and its allies. Taiwanese society has developed a degree of immunity.

The only important question is whether the Taiwanese people will be misled by Cheng Li-wun, just like He Yinglu was. Will they also climb onto the shoulders of giants and lose their own sense of identity? Preventing such a crisis early is crucial. Once a person—or a society—loses its sense of self, what can anyone still hope from them?

For so many years, how much time and opportunity have you and I lost to parties like the “Cheng Era KMT”? We must not repeat these mistakes. Everything is changing. Every person and every society must keep pace with the rapid transformations of the technological age. The fittest survive; what is past cannot be corrected, but the future can still be pursued. The “Cheng Era KMT” is merely a toxic remnant of a political wave that has already receded—lingering historical foam not yet washed away.