President Chen Shui-bian's (
But the question is: Has the pan-blue camp really grasped the crux of the problem? Evidently not. Lien and Soong have responded to their defeat by stirring up protest by their supporters, claiming that the election was unfair and invalid. This appears on the surface to be an attempt to overturn the results of the election, but it would do not to be deceived. The real motive for the protest is to transfer responsibility for the defeat away from Lien and Soong, riding on the wave of an emotional crowd. To put it another way, the pair's stirring up of the masses is designed to ensure their survival as leaders of the pan-blue camp.
It is equally understandable how difficult the defeat was to accept given the miniscule margin of only 0.228 percentage points. But did Lien and Soong really lose by only 29,518 votes? Again, this is far from the case. They went from collectively having 60 percent of the vote in the 2000 elections to a situation where, four years down the road, they are neck and neck with the pan-green camp. Shouldn't Lien and Soong shoulder the blame for this? The two men seem to be blaming the Democratic Progressive Party and Chen for the situation, bearing none of the responsibility for themselves.
This is hardly an isolated case as far as Lien is concerned. Consider his record. Following the 2000 election defeat he placed then-KMT chairman Lee Teng-hui (
Now we have seen the loosening of the KMT's hold on their domain. For a leader to react in this way, attempting to annul the election and hide behind his supporters, seems to be resorting to desperate measures.
Despite Lien's ability to wield the loyalty of his supporters to his own advantage like this, politics is both unforgiving and brutal. His much heralded "second transition of power" has proved to be nothing but pie in the sky, but there may be worse to come.
If the pan-blues lose seats in the year-end legislative elections, exacerbating their loss of power, this will be bad news not just for Lien but for the KMT and the PFP. Could it be that there is really an invisible hand acting behind the scenes of Taiwanese history?
Chin Heng-wei is the editor in chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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