President Chen Shui-bian's (
It was interesting that the major criticism of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) spokesman Alex Tsai after the speech was that it was late in coming. Actually, Chen said nothing Saturday night that the presidential office had not already offered before. A recount, international participation in the shooting investigation: these had been on the table as of midweek, but KMT Chairman Lien Chan (
That Lien and People First Party Chairman James Soong (
But this week has shown something far more upsetting to anyone who cares not just about democratic processes and the rule of law, but also about simple common sense. Everyone involved in this dispute knows how the balloting process in Taiwan is carried out. Everybody should therefore know quite well that it is a model of openness that other democracies would do well to imitate.
You cannot stuff ballot boxes in Taiwan. The bookkeeping about how many ballot papers are delivered to polling stations, how many are used and how many must be returned is simply too strict. You cannot fraudulently count the vote, since it is carried out in too open a style, and the registration of each ballot is liable to objection from party representatives if there is a hint of partisanship or skullduggery.
All parties involved in the election know this. All of the pan-greens, all of the pan-blues, everyone. You cannot rig a vote in Taiwan under the present system.
There is another thing that people should already know, unless their minds have been rotted by too many bad action films. You cannot "shoot to wound" a man in the stomach standing on a moving vehicle. And yet people believe these things.
Both these events have obvious explanations.
As to the election, Chen and the Democratic Progressive Party won it by a small number of votes. This happens: that is the way the system works.
And as to the shooting, some wacko, his mind turned crazy by the endless diet of pan-blue hate propaganda against Chen in the last few weeks -- the analogies with Hitler, bin Laden, Saddam and the like -- decided that Chen simply couldn't be allowed to win, and tried to kill him to prevent it.
This makes absolute perfect sense. It is a model of events that we can all understand. That does not mean that it is exactly what happened, but it is the most likely chain of events and should do as a working hypothesis for most people, until other evidence comes along. But not for the pan-blues.
What is disturbing about this is not that an election can be challenged: that is a legal right. Nor that losing an election is frustrating: that is human nature.
What is truly disturbing is the way that common sense has simply been thrown aside. Sane and rational people have been willing to overlook the obvious and believe the most preposterous things, rather than face the truth. A large number of people in this country are in the grip of hysterical self-delusion.
Perhaps Taiwan needs psychiatric help.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS