Two days ago, the Taiwan High Court announced that the pan-blue camp had failed in their lawsuit challenging the validity of the March 20 presidential election. This is not the end of the issue, but rather the beginning of the final chapter.
The pan-blue camp had expected to lose its case, and in a press conference the day before the announcement, it had already set about limiting the damage. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
Naturally, Lien and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (
During the US presidential election in 2000, the US could have degenerated into the endless struggle that we now see in Taiwan. But Al Gore, even though he held a majority of the popular vote, conceded the election to avoid a constitutional crisis. This is the behavior of a statesman who has both political insight and an understanding of the law. This action avoided the catastrophe of a US president being put in power by judicial decision without opposition support.
Four years later, Senator John Kerry conceded defeat to avoid dividing the nation. In conceding defeat before the complete count of votes in Ohio, Kerry was putting the national interest first and showing that he was a true statesman. He also showed that what is important in democracy is not only the system, but the understanding and faith of political leaders in the democracy and the laws of the nation.
In Taiwan, the scope of the struggle over the election has expanded. As the parties that lost the election are unwilling to concede defeat, and have taken the issue to the courts and to the streets, Taiwan has achieved little of political importance since March. In the process, time and community resources have been squandered.
If we compare our elections with those in the US, we can see that America's democratic culture is significantly more mature than ours. We have not had America's luck, for we only have a Lien, rather than a Gore. Lien does not see things in terms of competition, but only as a battle to the death. The battle has been going on for a year now, and the defeat in the High Court is a skirmish before the fight for votes in next month's legislative elections. Only when one party falls on its sword will the battlefield be cleared. This is the nation's misfortune.
The High Court's judgment on the validity of the March 20 election is the first domino to fall in this drawn-out electoral race, but it is not hard to see that the chances of winning future verdicts in this case are minimal. As for the legal proceedings associated with the March 19 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee Statute (三一九槍擊事件真調會條例), even a layman can see that numerous articles in the statute are unconstitutional. The pan-blue camp knows this, but proceeds regardless. As a result, it is now in danger of destroying the hopes of its parties in next month's legislative elections. If Lien and Soong were far-sighted statesmen, they would know that it was time to stop -- rather than make their own political parties and the whole nation the sacrificial victims of their self-destruction.
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