As if things are not already chaotic enough in the run- up to the presidential election, the pan-blues have started talking about the danger of riots by angry mobs over the result of the election and even the possibility of President Chen Shui-bian (
On Wednesday, People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (
In response, the Executive Yuan made a U-turn, agreeing to the proposal about separating the voting for the presidential election and the referendum. Since this was the proposal endorsed and supported by the pan-blues, the move was obviously intended to end disputes over how the election should be administered and wild accusations about ulterior motives on the part of the Cabinet. Contrary to such groundless accusations, the last thing that the government and the ruling party want is a riot or a state of emergency.
It is ironic that the Soong and members of the pan-blues should be the ones warning about the possibility of a riot and the imposition of martial law. After all, in the past two presidential elections, the only riot that took place was staged in 2000 by KMT members who supported Soong -- who had run as an independent after he left the KMT because it had nominated Lien Chan (
While it is the responsibility of the leaders and candidates of both camps to ask their supporters to show self-restraint before an election takes place, with the KMT's record it is imperative for pan-blue leaders to call on their supporters to show sportsmanship and respect for democracy, and not repeat their previous mistakes. However, the statements of Soong and other pan-blue camp members seem designed to accomplish precisely the opposite -- to inflame public sentiment through wild conspiracy theories and instill fear about the possibility of a state of emergency and martial law being declared. Such things are nothing to laugh at: people have vivid memories of the terror of the KMT's martial law era.
In contrast, the pan-greens, including Minister of the Interior Yu Cheng-hsien (
However, having gone through two presidential elections, one is inclined to believe that the people of Taiwan have enough maturity to respect the outcome of the election -- regardless of who wins.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS