The Pequod is going down, and going down fast.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
Their "unfair election" misadventure is a desperate ploy to save their careers and their reputations, and they are not afraid to take everyone down with them.
Any pan-blue politician worth his salt will cut himself loose from the wreckage of the Lien-Soong campaign and seek a new vessel to carry his political aspirations.
The younger generation of pan-blue leaders has to make a choice between tying their future to the waning fortunes of the old guard of the pan-blue camp and charting a new course of reconciliation and constructive criticism.
There is no reason the pan-blues cannot, over the next four years, embrace the role of opposition party and thereby strengthen the political debate in Taiwan.
Were the pan-blues to play their cards right, they would also have a groundswell of support to tap into for the December legislative elections.
But why should anyone want a revived pan-blue camp?
Because democracy requires nuanced and spirited debate. No government is infallible, and no political party can know what is best for everyone on every issue (although many claim that they do).
If Taiwan's opposition party sinks into a morass of self-pity and unthinking contrariness, how will the people of Taiwan resolve any of the lasting problems they must face?
There has been a lot of poor sportsmanship all around. The nation is divided about how to proceed socially, economically and diplomatically.
This, at least, must be recognized by both political alliances.
The divisive and acrimonious tactics of the past should be set aside.
The pan-blues have learned that these are the components of a losing strategy, having lost credibility and two presidential elections.
The alliance has capable, popular and honest politicians. Such leaders should recognize the opportunity they now have to take control of their party and chart a new political course.
The problems facing Taiwan -- how to resolve the cross-strait dispute, how to strengthen and nurture the economy, how to clean up the environmental disaster left by decades of neglect, among others -- are impervious to quick fixes and catchy slogans.
If the debate over these issues degenerates into mere barroom brawling in the legislature, who in Taiwan will benefit?
Ahab never got his whale, and Lien and Soong aren't going to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
All of the desperate efforts they have used to fan the flames of anger surrounding their defeat won't make any difference.
They have tried all of the legal solutions available.
They have whimpered, whined, begged and thundered for a new election, a new recount -- anything to give them victory. But it is to no avail.
Lien has gotten his recount, but this is not Florida, and the vote-tallying process is both swift and accurate. Besides, the pan-blues smeared the entire election as "unfair," but they never alleged impropriety in the initial tally of ballots. It is improbable that a recount will alter the final result of the election, and Lien knows it. Hence the theatrics.
So let the old KMT -- the corrupt, authoritarian and ruthless KMT -- die the spectacular death it deserves.
Send Lien and Soong packing.
Mac William Bishop is an editor at the Taipei Times.
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