So Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
It is hardly surprising, then, that he should be so flabbergasted that such an arrangement should twice fail to confirm his career trajectory into occupancy of the Presidential Office.
After a year of claiming the shooting of President Chen Shui-bian (
Unfortunately, when Lien belittles Taiwan's achievements in front of an audience in the manifest tyranny of China, it is something else that he has in mind: Taiwan is not "democratic" because it does not recognize Lien's droit du seigneur over the presidency.
Certainly, Taiwan's democracy is flawed. But ironically, these are in ways that benefit Lien. The KMT has retained its stolen assets and the pan-blue camp has retained the media dominance it acquired under martial law. The reason for this is that the democratization process was negotiated. Unlike countries that threw out long-serving dictatorships by a more robust process -- a revolution, for example, which would wipe the slate clean of the old hegemony and start anew -- Taiwan's current political settlement, if it can be called that, is the result of the KMT surrendering dictatorial power while being allowed to retain much of the political and social structures that underwrote it. How else could the pan-blue camp try to engineer a military coup to overturn the result of the presidential election last year?
Taiwan might even be too democratic. After all, amid the pan-blue-instigated instability after last year's presidential election, pressure was put on Chen to declare a state of emergency. There are some of us who think he should have seized this opportunity to bring about the revolutionary shake-up Taiwan has never had. Chen could have declared a state of emergency with pan-blue support, then used the powers it gave him to throw the pan-blue leadership and their legislators in jail, after which he could use the green rump of the legislature to legalize proceedings with an enabling act.
Such behavior is common in Latin America, where it is known as an auto golpe, or "self coup." That Chen resisted the temptation burnishes his democratic credentials, though a democratic step backward could have been the precursor to two steps forward. But now, because of Chen's restraint, the pan-blue camp is able to continue its work as an agent of China's expansionism, selling out Taiwan's freedoms for permanent demotion to an undemocratic "Taiwan Special Administrative Region."
Lien's latest betrayal can only have us wondering how long it will be before Taiwanese decide his antics must be stopped. English King Henry II once asked of Archbishop Thomas Becket, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" We ask: Will no one rid Taiwan of this treacherous Lien Chan?
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase