The use by the pan-blues of Adolf Hitler in their campaign ads is beneath contempt but we hope that in the last week of the election campaign it might serve to focus people's minds on the choice they have to make. For what was Hitler's government but the capture of the institutions of the state by a criminal gang? And what is the pan-blue alliance but a criminal gang seeking to capture the institutions of the state?
For those who find even this analogy in questionable taste let us remind them that during its period of government in China the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) murdered some 10,075,000 people -- ordinary innocent people, we stress, as this figure does not include war deaths. It is often forgotten that Chiang Kai-shek (
Times have changed, say the pan-blues. Perhaps so, but the fact that the pan-blues have never shown even the slightest contrition for what they have done -- and hard-liners were in fact incensed when in the late 1990s former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) apologized on behalf of the government for the 228 massacre -- suggests that they gave up the habit of killing not because of some Damascene conversion in their moral outlook but simply because it was expedient to do so.
What the pan-blues have never given up is their propensity for theft. Their presidential candidates are themselves mired in this culture of theft. People First Party Chairman James Soong (
Thieves leading a party of theft -- hardly an edifying prospect for a future government. Which makes Saturday's mass turnout for the pan-blues rather depressing. Why would people want to vote for a party whose principle skill is looting? It is truly amazing that anybody can fail to see the pan-blues' desire for power as anything other than the desire of confidence tricksters to persuade the people to leave the cookie jar in their care. Voting for the pan-blues is simply queuing up to have one's pocket picked.
This election has been characterized as a fight between pro-Taiwan and pro-China forces. It has been described as a battle between progressive forces, with an agenda that stresses democratic choice and popular sovereignty, and the forces of reaction, with their record of political exclusion and their current rejection of democratic choice -- a rejection best summed up as "you can vote, but only for the things we allow you to vote for." Both of these characterizations are correct.
But there is one more way of looking at the election. It is between those who have had a vision of how to make Taiwan a better society and have tried to actualize that vision, and those who see political power as a means only to enrich themselves. The pan-blues are not interested in making Taiwan a better place to live in. They are interested in expanding their real-estate portfolios in the US at our expense. What amazes is that Lien and Soong's prostrating themselves on Saturday did not cover them with ridicule. After all, if they love Taiwan so much, why did that make sure their sons dodged military service? Why do they have so much property and so many family members overseas? Can Taiwanese really fall for these crooked charlatans? Do turkeys really vote for Christmas?
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