While the pan-blue camp is still engaging in its final struggle against the results of the presidential election, Singapore's Straits Times has reported that Li Jiaquan (
Washington and Beijing play the most decisive roles in the cross-strait relationship. They both have accepted that Chen was the legitimate winner of the presidential election. Yet the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) are still reluctant to concede defeat.
The KMT-PFP alliance has persistently questioned the legitimacy of Chen's victory and mobilized their supporters to deny the legitimacy of Chen's reelection. Ironically, it is the legitimacy of the pan-blues' protests that have been most doubted. Even the international media has conceded that they have yet to put forward concrete evidence to support their vote-rigging claims.
Since the two parties initiated their series of lawsuits, they have provided no evidence, relying instead on paid advertisements calling upon their supporters to come up with some evidence. While more gullible members of the public may believe the old adage that "where's there's smoke, there's fire," the nation's judges are not impressed.
The Taiwan High Court yesterday held its first hearing of the KMT-PFP lawsuit requesting the election be invalidated. Presiding Judge Cheng Ya-ping (
In Beijing, Zhongnanhai's Taiwan strategies have always been rigid, disregarding changes in Taiwan's political situation. Li told the Straits Times that, under the "one China" principle, China is prepared to accept the existence of and interact with the Republic of China. He also said that Zhongnanhai regretted the inflexibility of its past cross-strait policies.
Even if Li's comments do not represent the Chinese government's stance, it is interesting that he was willing to admit that China's rigid policy on cross-strait relations has been a major mistake. Unfortunately for the people of Taiwan, neither the KMT and the PFP appear to be aware of or willing to face changes in public opinion, much less admit that they made mistakes in the past.
It is hard to believe that the two parties' ability to adapt to their environment is inferior to that of an advisor to the Chinese leadership. They repeatedly claim to represent the people of Taiwan and to be supported by half of the electorate. How could they lose the presidential election with such support?
The nation is eagerly awaiting the results of the recount. The people really want to know if the Central Election Commission made mistakes when counting the votes. How else could the shameless and shiftless KMT and PFP lose the election by such a narrow margin?
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS