Not only did Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) not accept their defeat in this year's presidential election, but they also deliberately sought to whip up their disgruntled supporters' emotions to create a riot. Their behavior not only damaged the country, it also hurt the two men's public approval ratings, which plunged more than 20 percent. In short, their antics nearly destroyed their political careers.
Why wasn't Lien capable of admitting defeat? We perhaps could have predicted that beha-vior from his "pure Chinese" stance -- emphasized during his visit to the US -- which makes him believe in a culture with zero tolerance for defeat.
The barbarity of the Chinese soccer fans at the end of the recent 2004 Asian Cup final in Beijing displays a similar belief. After China lost to Japan, Chinese soccer fans burned Japanese flags, besieged the Japanese team buses, and shouted for the extermination of all Japanese devils.
In both sports competitions and democratic elections, there are three fundamental principles: to abide by the rules of the game, compete peacefully and accept defeat gracefully. Both the behavior of Lien and Soong and the riot of Chinese soccer fans in Beijing were the result of ignoring these foundations of civilized sport and society. Whenever they encounter an unfavorable situation, such people invariably throw a tantrum. For them, whether it's in sports or elections, it's not a competition of skills or popularity, but a chance to see who has the best dirty tricks.
We have witnessed the inability of Chinese soccer fans to accept defeat before. In the summer of 1985 in Beijing, after the Chinese soccer team lost to Hong Kong in the World Cup qualifier, Beijing's soccer fans became violent -- looting shops, damaging cars and injuring foreigners.
This inability to tolerate defeat originates chiefly from feelings of inferiority and arrogance. The arrogance comes from China's long history, its rich territory and its soaring economic development in recent years. There is a self-inflated mindset which cherishes the illusion that the 21st century is a century for Chinese people. But at the same time, many Chinese people think their country isn't superior enough to be truly respected by international society -- and therein lies their inferiority complex.
Not being able to accept losing means having no confidence in winning again. Only by resorting to emotional behavior can these sore losers soothe the feelings of inferiority brought by defeat.
Permitting such irrational display of feelings in an individual can lead to tragedy. In a nation it can bring calamity. If the Chinese government continues to support and incite the fanatic sentiment of nationalism, it will one day bring catastrophe on itself.
Cao Chang-ching is a writer based in the US.
TRANSLATED BY LIN YA-TI
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS