What a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black!
Wang Weiming ("Laughable and pathetic," April 30, page 8) charges that the pan-greens are making dangerous accusations, while failing to mention that since March 20 the pan-blues have indulged in much contemptible character assassination as well as repeated attempts to create Haiti-style civil unrest ("revolution," they call it).
The beauty of democracy is that citizens are free to question their leaders. However, in light of the post-election uproar, have we not seen affable pan-green politicians and supporters humbly accept a ballot recount and further in-vestigations into the attempted assassinations?
Where can you find another world leader who, after an attempt on his life, is assumed guilty and forced by his nation to "please explain why you were shot?"
Yet President Chen Shui-bian (
Can anyone deny that Chen's holding out of the olive branch has availed him little thus far? The pan-blues' bitterness at their defeat has marred their respect for the judicial system and raised questions about their judgment and morality. Are the rest of us also free to question the pan-blues' intentions and acerbic tone?
While there is always room for improvement, Chen included, let us look at both sides of the argument with greater objectivity. Upholding democratic principles means that however free we may be to question our leaders, we must also respect the courts' ability to honor our legal codes with due process. Failing this, we fail democracy.
Insinuating that leaders can bypass the laws and judicial processes is surely not conducive to the spirit of democracy. The pan-blues would do better to point their accusing fingers at those who harbor such dangerous and illegal notions.
Currently I see no indications of political turmoil or democracy going "backward," as some former tyrants continue to claim.
Respected international commentators and global leaders alike have lauded Taiwan's democracy as true and functioning, particularly in light of the capable handling of the pan-blues' post-March 20 enmity.
My fellow Taiwanese would certainly do better for our young democracy by placing more faith in our nation and its laws.
Jennifer Chen
Australia
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS