Since the US-Iraq war broke out, Taiwan's green and blue camps have turned into pro-US and pro-China factions respectively. They are now engaging in a "saliva war" almost as vehement as the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, the opposition camp is stopping at nothing to humiliate Chen Shui-bian's (
On the legislative floor, pan-blue legislators are hurling abuse at Chen for his support of the US war in Iraq, calling him a "toady of the Americans" and a "child-emperor." Although Chen's remarks have hardly been inappropriate, the opposition lawmakers overstepped the bounds of propriety with their insulting accusations. Such vitriol will not win any sympathy from the public. Taiwan now has freedom of speech, but the people of this country did not give their lawmakers the power to insult or vilify their president under any pretext. The opposition parties should seriously question and debate government policies instead of gossiping about the president's private affairs on the legislative floor. Such unwarranted abuse of the interpellation sessions simply turns the legislature into a national rumor mill.
Before the war broke out in Iraq, we heard Democratic members of the US Congress fiercely opposing Us president George W. Bush's plan to take military action. However, US Democrats never mounted a personal attack on their president or resorted to character assassination, no matter how much they disagreed with Bush. That's because they know that using their official power to humiliate the president is the equivalent of being disloyal to their country. Unless they are in fact loyal to another country, representatives of the people should not do that.
If more than one opposition lawmaker publicly claims on the floor of the legislature that their own president is the son of the US "emperor" and a lackey of the Americans, how can they also claim to respect the choices of the people of Taiwan? Was not the president democratically elected by the people of Taiwan? Such talk gives one the impression that these legislators would rather give their loyalty to another country and another head of state.
Everyone knows that next year's presidential election is drawing near. The chairman of the KMT, which was ousted from power only three years ago, and the chairman of the PFP, who narrowly lost the election at that same time, are now setting their sights on the posts of president and vice president. They are vowing to bring another transition of political power to Taiwan. From the perspective of democratic politics, everyone will accept the ultimate choice of the majority of the electorate. But we would like to ask the opposition parties not to be so base. It might give people the impression that the opposition is trying to assume power by trampling on the basic principles of democratic politics by defaming their political opponents.
We know that the Taiwanese electorate is not stupid. In the previous legislative elections, the voters dumped a large number of politicians who abused their power trying to humiliate and tarnish the head of state. This should have served as a valuable lesson to the opposition camp. We hope to see the KMT and the PFP play their appropriate role as opposition and show loyalty to their country, instead of siding with the regime in Beijing on every issue -- mere happenstance, to be sure -- and insulting their country's president.
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