PFP Chairman James Soong's (宋楚瑜) speech on the eve of his meeting with KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) confirmed his reluctant consent to a Lien-Soong ticket in the next presidential election. But, Soong sounded more like a martyr speaking before stepping into a proverbial lion's den. Not the slightest joy about this "match made in heaven" could be gleaned from his words. Despite the flowery words, the entire speech was riddled with accusatory undercurrents flowing toward the KMT.
"Between Lien and Soong, only one will run for the presidency," Soong said, and as for who will be that person, he indicated he will "respect Lien [on that point]." Since it is no secret that Lien will just about do anything to become president, it is very obvious what Soong really means.
Even though the KMT and Lien seem closer than ever to having things their way, they should still watch out. Despite Soong's repeated insistence that it does not matter "who takes the position [of presidential candidate]," and his statement that "there is nothing I could not give up," history tells us that Soong is just not the type to roll over and die. The louder Soong moans "persecution," the more reason his opponents have to feel worried. After all, victimization been proven time and again a most successful vote-sucking device for Soong. Remember how this poor martyr (then-provincial governor) after loosing power due to downsizing of the provincial government won sympathy to the tune of 4 million votes in the presidential election?
It's no wonder Soong went on to spend a good part of his speech prodding the KMT and Lien. First, he said that it would be difficult for the PFP to fully embrace the KMT until its "baggage" had been eliminated, subtly reminding the public about how KMT "black gold" might be a liability to the PFP.
Soong then declared his policies as provincial governor had done no harm to the KMT, therefore implying that his expulsion from the party was unjustified. The venomous subtext of this statement was that he is deserving of compensation. In other words, Soong is leaning heavily on his bargaining leverage, negotiating for the highest price possible for bringing his people in line behind a joint pan-blue ticket. This indicates that while a Lien-Soong ticket may be at hand, there is a long way to go when it comes to details.
Moreover, immediately after Soong gave his speech, the deputy convener of the PFP legislative caucus Chiu Yi (邱毅) said just because Soong expressed respect for Lien, it did not mean that a Lien-Soong ticket is a sure thing. Many PFP lawmakers were still pushing for Soong to run for the presidency after his talk. Surely, none of them will be too happy about the partnership until they learn what's in it for them. In view of this, the task of working out details quickly becomes a virtually insurmountable mountain of bickering.
Perhaps the biggest problem with the Lien-Soong partnership so far is the fact that a handful of individuals at the top of both parties decided upon the whole thing without any democratic process. While both the KMT and the PFP have indicated that they will hold meetings within their separate parties to finalize the matter, shouldn't those meetings already have taken place before Lien and Soong reached their agreement? Now these meetings will be nothing but rubber stamps with no democratic value and used simply to echo what's already been dictated.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS