It is difficult to think that many people believed the pan-blue camp had a realistic chance of overturning the result of the presidential election with its ridiculous lawsuit. After a long, seven-month wait, the Taiwan High Court has handed down its verdict, rejecting the claims of the pan-blue camp that President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) were elected illegally.
Ironically, across the Pacific, and only hours before this verdict was released, US Democratic presidential nominee Senator John Kerry called incumbent President George W. Bush to concede defeat after an extremely close presidential race -- at the time there were 254 Electoral Votes to Bush and 252 to Kerry with Kerry trailing Bush in Ohio by a very narrow margin. For a moment, there were fears there would be a repeat of the fiasco four year ago, when Bush was effectively declared president by the Supreme Court. But Kerry had the decency to uphold the integrity of an admittedly flawed electoral system.
It is important to keep in mind that this US presidential election -- owing to a controversial war against Iraq and issues such as tax reform and gay marriage -- divided Americans in a manner no less painful than Taiwan's experience at our presidential election in March. But the American people and the presidential candidates kept their cool at the most crucial of moments and democracy prevailed.
This serves as a painful reminder of the night more than seven months ago when, immediately after the vote for the presidential race was announced, Chinese Nationalist Party Chairman and presidential candidate Lien Chan (連戰) and his running mate, People's First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜), not only refused to concede defeat but also accused the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) of cheating and tampering with ballots, before filing an unprecedented lawsuit to overturn the result -- without substantial evidence to back their accusations. When asked about the resemblance between the situations faced by Kerry and Lien, Soong said yesterday that "so long as the truth is not out, there can be no mutual trust in society and there will always be polarization."
The problem with the pan-blue camp is that it is so blinded by its biases that "truth" has no value. But the truth of the matter is plain and simple -- they lost. The inability of the pan-blue camp to face up to this difficult reality took on greater meaning when, before the verdict had even been handed down, Lien said that Chen was a fraud and that aggrieved people were entitled to kill him. Other KMT members also accused the court of being unfair -- even though the court had said nothing! With this kind of behavior on show, it was already clear the pan-blue camp was never going to accept the verdict of the court. An appeal is pending.
If the KMT wishes to waste more of its ill-gotten assets on financing this frivolous lawsuit, then that's its business. However, there is cause for concern as to how pan-blue supporters will react to this verdict. In view of the irrational behavior of many of these supporters, for which we have only the inflammatory language of pan-blue politicians to thank, it is a justifiable concern. At times like this, one can only entreat these supporters to respect the judiciary and basic democratic values and refrain from further destructive behavior.
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
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
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the
RSS