The pan-blues do not care about Taiwan. They care only about attaining power, and their misconceived dreams of grandeur endanger the survival of Taiwan as an independent and democratic state.
Depending on your point of view, the chaotic dissonance of the pan-blues' policy statements has been either intensely amusing or deeply depressing. What their statements have not been is coherent and practical.
Most worrying of all are the deep ideological rifts between Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
Should this mismatched duo become responsible for anything more consequential than making a photocopy, it will be disastrous. And I would suggest letting one of their colleagues use the copy machine. Maybe Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
In any event, the rift is increasingly evident, and the hackneyed attempts at papering over the lack of consensus simply highlight the dysfunction of the pan-blue alliance. Consider the statements made by Lien and Soong regarding the nationwide referendum.
Lien tells us that he will not take part in the ballot, but will respect the people's choice in the matter. This well-planned policy stance appears to embrace all the philosophical elements of "well, I dunno, so, you know, uhhh ... whatever."
Meanwhile, Soong says the "illegal" referendum should never take place, and it would be better to ignore it altogether. Of course, it has never occurred to Soong that instead of throwing a tantrum ("I don't wanna play referendum"), he would do well to propose an alternative solution to the issues involved. But that would require forethought and a belief system, instead of mere malignant opportunism.
Of greater import is the inability of Lien and Soong to share an opinion about how to deal with China. Lien calls for a "confederation" and says that Taiwan ought to just focus on economic integration with China, leaving the "political" cross-strait issues to future generations. Does Lien actually believe that politics and economics have nothing to do with each other?
Then, Soong calls for "one China under one roof," buying into the intellectually bankrupt and historically inaccurate pan-Chinese nationalist uberkultur myth.
What "one roof" would mean in practice isn't clear (Does it mean one government? One leader? Perhaps an actual Great Roof, to accompany the Great Wall?). But certainly what "one China under one roof" means for Taiwan is not political autonomy.
So how will the KMT-PFP reconcile these positions if they attain power?
What will they actually do about the threat from China?
Pretending that the Chinese are not expanding their missile forces and overall military capabilities in order to force a solution to the "Taiwan issue" on terms favorable to Beijing is irresponsible.
Were it not for the possibility the pan-blues could win the election, it would be easy to mock the disjointed and nonsensical campaign strategies employed by the KMT-PFP alliance. The "313 Rally" is an especially fitting symbol for the pan-blues.
Some people might wonder why the KMT-PFP chose today for their counter-rally.
A close reading of Taiwan's history will clarify this matter immediately. The rally will be held on the important and auspicious date of March 13 because ... it's a Saturday.
And what does the KMT tell us we will celebrate on this, our most revered last Saturday before the presidential election?
Well, anti-black-gold, of course. It's an anti-black-gold rally. It's anti-black-gold Saturday.
Apparently they were so flustered by the success of the 228 Hand-in-Hand Rally the pan-blues thought their best move was to throw together their own rally around a generally inoffensive theme. In a stunning display of political acumen, they never considered that the DPP would then simply say "Hey, we're against corruption, too. See you on Saturday!"
This is precisely what the DPP did.
So the KMT-PFP had to change tactics again.
The organizer of the pan-blues' election campaign, Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (
Quite a subtle message, really.
So now the DPP can't take part. Brilliant.
There is a colloquial American term that applies to the pan-blues' planning. It is "piss poor."
If the pan-blues can't even manage a pep rally, how can they run a country?
And equally important, if Lien and Soong are thrown into a panic because of a peace rally, what would they do if there was a real crisis in cross-strait relations?
Mac William Bishop is a political commentator based in Taipei.
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