President Chen Shui-bian's (
On the night of the election, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
Lien's astonishing remarks raised the curtain once again. Since the night of March 20, pan-blue supporters have massed in front of the Presidential Office, demanding a recount and the truth behind the shooting incident.
Remembering that supporters of People First Party Chairman James Soong (
Lien's demand for a recount is not unreasonable, given that according to the official tally he lost by so few votes. And because Lien's call for a recount stands on the solid ground of law, the Taiwan High Court has ordered that all ballot boxes be sealed nationwide. But now that Lien's lawsuits are being processed, there is little else to do but wait for the machinery of the legal process to settle the election dispute.
If, on the other hand, we let emotion override reason, the problem will remain unresolved.
A tiny margin is, after all, an undeniable difference. The rules of democratic politics are not set by a single party alone. For example, the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Law (
Each party within a democracy is obliged to accept election results. One cannot refuse to accept the outcome just because one believes that the the election was unfair.
In light of this, the fact that Lien and Soong have led supporters to march to the Presidential Office, called for their supporters to congregate and protest in violation of the Assembly and Parade Law (集會遊行法) -- which was enacted by the pan-blue-dominated legislature -- and have shown no regard for Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) repeated appeals for the crowds to disperse, makes one feel that they are letting their emotions get the better of them.
I am afraid that the majority of voters in Taiwan will not find this acceptable.
The pan-blue camp is willing to resort to legal means, demanding a recount and the sealing of ballot boxes and vowing to file a lawsuit to have the election annulled -- so why are they incapable of obeying the Assembly and Parade Law? If Lien and Soong abide by the law only insofar as it suits them, how can we expect them to rule this nation by law? How can they justify their demands?
The gravity of the problem goes way beyond this. The political gatherings over the past few days have come dangerously close to rupturing ethnic harmony.
Chen's re-election bid was endorsed by at least half of the electorate. A handful of politicians can refuse to recognize his victory but they must not brand him a liar or demand that he step down. Is doing so conducive to social stability?
The election result reveals overwhelming support for the pan-blue camp in northern Taiwan and support for the pan-green camp in the south. This phenomenon only reflects the differences in politics and culture between the north and south. But a handful of politicians have openly suggested that the north and south separate and build their own nations. Is this conducive to ethnic harmony?
Even before all the facts about the assassination attempt on Chen could be determined, they boldly asserted that it was a staged drama in a dirty election. Is this rational?
Despite demanding that their supporters remain rational and peaceful, they are stirring up people's emotions, wanting them to carry out a long-term fight amid wind and rain. Is this how responsible political leaders should behave?
Lien's not delivering a concession speech was understandable, even though it demonstrated a lack of democratic spirit.
Destroying partisan relations is also understandable because politics necessarily involves power struggle.
But if the pan-blue side incites people to take to the streets just because of the miniscule margin by which Chen won and lets a handful of politicians play up irresponsible issues to undermine ethnic relations, then this is unforgivable.
Some religious leaders have called for reason and mutual respect -- in direct contrast to some politicians' wild appeals and the gestures of hatred and the bloodshot eyes that we have seen on TV.
Those who love this nation and society watch with bleeding hearts.
Xiang Yang is an associate professor of indigenous languages at National Dong Hwa University.
Translated by Wang Hsiao-wen and Jackie Lin
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS