Lien Chan's (連戰) behavior over the weekend illustrates quite vividly why large swathes of the population now call him Lien Dai (
Lien appears to think that since Chen is so keen on independence, if he "had the guts" he would hold a referendum on it. What nonsense. Nobody wants a referendum on this topic and to do so might even spark war with China. So Lien is basically advocating a policy which could lead to war, just to show off his machismo.
Lien has once again demonstrated the total incoherence of his thinking. After all, Chen promised not to hold a referendum on this topic. So Lien is criticizing Chen for keeping his promise. He has also managed to give Chen an excellent opportunity to point out the current limits of the Referendum Law (
Not that Lien bothers much about the law any more -- and why should he? For four years his party has been conspiring with China to sell out Taiwan. Since March he has been involved in trying to overthrow the nation's democracy through both civil and military insurrection. Men have been labeled traitors and hanged for doing much less than Lien. If Chen "had the guts," he would prosecute Lien for treason.
But perhaps it's rather like having a mad beggar who hangs around making a nuisance of himself in your lane. You know quite well that a little intimidation will get him to clear off, but his condition is so wretched that you feel to use such tactics would make yourself contemptible.
But obviously for Chen there are more than moral considerations here. Lien is the best possible reason anyone could have to not vote for the pan-blues. If there are any wavering voters out there, all they have to do is look at the absolutely shambolic poltroon, incapable of logical or even rational thought, whose "leadership" has produced the vacuum that is the KMT's election strategy -- and whose denial of reality shows a clear need for serious psychological help.
Lien's antics can only help the pan-greens. But what does not help them are Chen's own. Last week he accused the pan-blues of trying to arrange a "soft coup." Those who have been identified, or identified themselves as the ringleaders of this alleged coup attempt have categorically denied that any such thing took place. Chen has said he has iron-clad evidence, but has not revealed any of it. By not doing so he risks being castigated for making the same groundless allegations that have always been a speciality of the pan-blues.
Those who believe that Chen has the goods have rationalized the wait over the last week by saying that Chen has been leading the blues further and further into denial so he can utterly destroy their credibility when he does release the evidence. We would like to believe this is true.
But we are worried. If Chen is waiting for the pan-blues to dig their own grave, then surely they have dug deep enough. This accusation is not just stupidity akin to the pan-blues' "bulletgate" nonsense. It calls into question something fundamental: whether the opposition is prepared to play by the rules of constitutional government. We need to see Chen's evidence and we need to see it now.
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