After a week-long mob protest in front of the Presidential Office incited by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong(宋楚瑜), it is obvious that KMT leaders and their followers do not understand or do not want democracy. Instead, they wish they were still under the authoritarian regimes of former dictators Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo(蔣經國) so they could declare the election invalid, nullify it and declare themselves the winners.
To the KMT, autocracy is always better than democracy. What a shame.
I was very surprised to learn that President Chen would be willing to sign a letter of consent to allow for an immediate recount without evidence of election fraud presented by the pan-blue camp ("Chen replies to pan-blue rally request," March 28, page 1). In a democratic country, even the president is not above the law and he must, in my opinion, obtain consent from the people who supported him because their rights should also be protected.
I hope Taiwan's High Court will not allow this to proceed. Evidence is the key to any legal challenge and procedure. And the KMT's army of lawyers, if they are competent, should not ignore the basic legal facts.
As Lien and Soong appealed their grievance to international reporters, many rally slogans were in English, such as "salvage democracy" or "democracy is dead," hoping to gain sympathy from the world media.
Fortunately, the international media and international opinion are mostly in support of Chen despite the KMT's propaganda machine.
Lien said his appeals were part of his heartfelt concern over the entire country's democratization. Surely he should know whose sacrifices gave birth to Taiwan's democracy. In the not too distant past, in an incident in Kaohsiung known as the "Formosa Incident," many DPP democratic activists were wrongfully jailed. Yet Lien, then minister of communications, and Soong, then director of the Government Information Office, never raised their voices against the unjust treatment of the activists. In fact, both Lien and Soong's contributions to Taiwan's democratic development have been rather insignificant, if not outright negative.
Lien and Soong said the crowds were out of their control during their massive rally. If so, are they fit to be the leaders if they have no control of their followers? You be the judge.
Kris Liao
California
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing