PFP Legislator Kao Ming-chien's (
Kao has come under such strong pressure from public opinion as well as opprobrium from the DPP and the TSU for good reason. He was not a member of the Taiwanese delegation and his name was listed by Beijing as a representative of the PRC's"Taiwan Province." As a legislator , Kao should have been more politically astute. After all, the nation's sovereignty status is an important matter at international conferences.
Kao should have lodged a complaint the day he arrived in Kuala Lumpur against Beijing's attempts to twist his representative status and to humiliate Taiwan. He should have demanded a correction from Beijing from the start, instead of waiting until the furor back home had spun out of control. Instead Kao lodged a complaint with Chinese officials at the end of the conference, when it was way too late. Beijing had achieved its goal of creating the impression that Taiwan is part of China and Kao's protest became just a minor interlude in the international event.
Regardless of whether Kao really attended the WHO conference at China's invitation, anyone can see that Beijing was trying to use PFP members as pawns in its propaganda campaign and he was the latest dupe. Beijing took advantage of the PFP's friendly attitude toward it. Kao, a neurosurgeon, only entered politics when he accepted the PFP's offer of the legislator at-large seat. So elated by an invitation to the conference, Kao apparently did not notice that he was entering Beijing's trap. Others might argue that he has been conniving with Beijing all along.
It is unfortunate that the incident has ignited another furor over independence versus unification because it will only sharpen the ethnic conflict in society in the run-up to next year's election. People already associate the PFP with "selling out Taiwan," thanks to remarks by PFP Chairman James Soong (
After all, Soong has said he would bring Taiwan into the WHO within two years if the KMT-PFP tickets wins the presidential election next March. He has also stressed time and again that the joint ticket would accept a "one China" policy. As usual, Soong has yet to explain in detail just how he plans to execute this diplomatic breakthrough in the WHO. By failing to give an explanation, Soong has inevitably allowed all kinds of speculation that are detrimental to him, as well as fears that he may accept China's "one country, two systems" and turn Taiwan into a local government of China on a par with Hong Kong and Macau. He has done little to dispel such worries.
The furor has driven home one lesson for the nation's political parties and politicians -- they must always be alert and never underestimate Beijing's machinations. The PFP should especially take note of this.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
As the highest elected official in the nation’s capital, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate-in-waiting for a presidential bid. With the exception of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕), Chiang is the most likely KMT figure to take over the mantle of the party leadership. All the other usual suspects, from Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have already been rejected at the ballot box. Given such high expectations, Chiang should be demonstrating resolve, calm-headedness and political wisdom in how he faces tough
RSS