One can never find the so-called "blue thinking methodology" in any books on thinking methodology, because it's a unique product of Taiwan's media, certain political groups and their supporters. What is "blue thinking methodology?" We can get a clear picture from the following examples.
One, President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) son, Chen Chih-chung (陳致中) -- who is now doing his military service -- took a day's leave after the Ministry of National Defense officially suspended leave for most military personnel. He was severely attacked by politicians who never questioned why KMT Chairman Lien Chan's (連戰) and PFP Chairman James Soong's (宋楚瑜) sons didn't have to do military service for health reasons.
Two, when Chen asked for business leaders' advice about government personnel, he was immediately criticized as ruling the nation through conglomerates. Some even compared him with the late president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), saying that business groups would never interfere with politics during Chiang's rule. This is laughable, because no one dared interfere with politics under the dictator's rule.
Three, Beijing has constantly claimed that it's taking good care of the health of the Taiwanese while obstructing the nation's participation in the World Health Assembly (WHA). After the president retorted that Beijing's claim was a lie, he was surprisingly criticized by Clara Chou (
Four, pan-blue politicians criticized former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) for purchasing a mansion at the Hong Si Villa. But they have forgotten that Chiang had many residences across the nation. They never questioned the acquisition or ownership of these presidential residences. Nor did they intend to investigate why Soong's son, Allen Soong (宋鎮遠) -- a US-based computer engineer -- was able to buy five houses in the US.
Five, after Lee left his post, he was criticized as interfering in politics when he commented on Taiwan's political situation. But Chiang held his post for five terms in violation of the Constitution before he passed away in 1975. Not only was his son, Chiang Ching-kuo (
Six, since these politicians hate Lee so much, they clamored for a cut in his annual security budget. Isn't it bizarre that they didn't know that the maintenance costs of the two Chiangs' cemeteries are much higher than the cost for Lee's bodyguards?
Seven, they made up the rumor that Lee's wife, Tseng Wen-hui (
Eight, whenever the 228 Incident is mentioned, they tell us not to live in the past.
Nine, they like to criticize Chen and Lee as autocratic and arbitrary. Are the incumbent and former presidents really worse than the two Chiangs?
Ten, they lashed out at the president for his poor handling of the Pachang Creek tragedy. But they were silent on Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou's (
There are many more examples. In conclusion, the principle of the "blue thinking methodology" is that pan-blue politicians are always right.
Li Hsiao-feng is a professor of political history at Shih Hsin University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS