According to many media reports, supporters of KMT presidential candidate Lien Chan (連戰) hope President Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) will give up the party chairmanship before his term is up.
Various signs appear to indicate that Lien is inclined to accept the idea. But even if Lien's camp has such a proposal in mind, it is not clear what Lien himself is really thinking.
However, even if Lien has thought of it, now is not the time for him to make his intention known to the public.
There are various reasons why the KMT's Lien-Siew ticket has had such a lackluster showing in the polls.
Some analysts think a primary reason is that Lien cannot escape from Lee's shadow.
Furthermore, many of Lee's recent speeches are perceived as being beneficial to Chen Shui-bian (
These speeches have provoked many complaints to Lee from Lien's camp.
Lien's supporters know how hard he has tried to increase his popularity. We can see the improvements he has made.
For example, he is showing more friendliness and naturalness when appearing in public and his public speaking skills have greatly improved.
Often accused of not understanding public opinion, he has tried to offer policies corresponding to the public's needs.
Normally, these positive changes would have boosted the popularity ratings of any candidate, but the results have been far from satisfactory in Lien's case.
In my opinion, Chen has benefited the most from the opinion polls. He has the image of a reformer and apparently no one will stand in his way when he implements reforms.
Lien has never been able to create a reformer image for himself. What makes it worse is that he has a backseat driver -- Lee.
Everyone has doubts about how much change Lien really could effect if he were to be elected.
Though feeling helpless, Lien's camp says things like "Lien Chan has his own opin-ions," or "if Lien Chan is elected, he will not be Lee Teng-hui's puppet."
They even say that Lien could be another Anwar Sadat, hoping to reassure the public about their man's determination to shake off Lee's influence.
But how can you ask others to believe something that has no guarantee of being true? Who would have such confidence?
Skeptics demand Lien demonstrate his own appeal and his own ideas right now, but it would appear that Lien lacks the guts to do so.
We might say the request is unfair, but it is not that unreasonable.
On the other hand, imagine that Lien suddenly loses his meekness and attacks Lee. Wouldn't this be rather awkward?
The votes he might win by doing so are probably less than those he might lose. The tactic is not feasible.
What would be the most beneficial to Lien is for Lee to quit the party chairmanship yet continue campaigning for his vice-president.
This is what Lien's camp wants most of all.
Is Lee willing to resign ahead of schedule? Don't think of how tightly Lee clings to his power, that is not the real worry.
What Lien's camp is really concerned about is that if Lee's resignation does not win votes for Lien, the KMT would not only lose their political power right away, but also lose an influential figure to organize the party.
Any smart person should understand that for Lee, whoever wins the election will be fine by him as long as it isn't Soong.
So why would he want to run such a huge risk of losing his power just to help Lien right now?
Chou Tien-jui is the chairman of the board of directors at Power News.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers