Sometimes history is bizarre; sometimes it is ironic; and sometimes it is cruel. This is particularly true in the case of PFP Chairman James Soong (
Recently, Soong announced his "vision for Taiwan." Some people interpreted it as an announcement of his candidacy in next year's presidential election. Others thought it meant he was withdrawing from the race, and still others read it as a letter of surrender. In fact, they are all correct. Soong is running in the sense that he is willing to defer to Lien by becoming his running mate and making "KMT-PFP cooperation" a reality for the sake of giving Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) a real challenge.
He is withdrawing in the sense that he has expressed willingness to play second fiddle in the presidential election. The vice president has no influence on the big picture, so Soong's move could be called a withdrawal. He is surrendering in the sense that the PFP is a party that was formed to back Soong as a presidential candidate. Now Soong is pulling out of the race and deferring to Lien, so he is surrendering. PFP supporters point out that his statement is a letter of surrender because the commander-in-chief raised the white flag. Clearly, the pan-blue camp pushed aside the pro-Soong camp, or perhaps the pro-Soong camp's decision to disband of its own accord enabled the accomplishment of "KMT-PFP cooperation."
In plain terms, the reason why Soong is willing to compromise next year is that he knows his influence is waning. There is no way that Soong himself or the PFP alone could win. Even Lien and Soong combined won't necessarily be able to defeat Chen with ease. In 2000, when Soong was determined to drop all pretense of friendly relations with Lee Teng-hui (
In fact, Soong was wasting his energy when he used a 10,000-word statement to announce "KMT-PFP cooperation" and a joint Lien-Soong ticket. What need is there for so many words to announce that he will play the supporting role? To quote Laozi, "words are weak."
Soong is indeed weak. In 2000, a reporter asked him, "Will you team up with Lien or not?" At the time, Soong replied with a simple question of his own, saying "I would only team up with Lien in order to win, but could a joint Lien-Soong ticket really win?"
He went on to answer his own question. "First, in a presidential election, the chief comes first, and his assistants ultimately play only a backup role. Second, if a joint Lien-Soong ticket fails to help the KMT reform its `black gold' politics ways, which the public can no longer tolerate, what meaning does such a pairing have except for the success or failure of a particular administration or individual?"
Even more interestingly, Soong also added, "If a politician's sense of mission is so simple that it changes to suit a particular distribution of power, can it still be called a sense of mission?" Soong has also said, "victory is only a low-level consideration." The original drafts of these speeches are all available for reference.
Comparing the speeches of 2000 with the 10,000-word statement of 2004, aren't Soong's basic points pretty much the same -- i.e. is the point of the joint Lien-Soong ticket purely to defeat Chen Shui-bian, will a Lien-Soong joint ticket necessarily mean victory, and after cooperating and beating Chen Shui-bian, then what?
It's just that Soong used exactly the same rhetorical questions to argue against a joint ticket in 2000 and to argue for a joint ticket next year. Soong can't make his statements sound plausible and has made no headway as a leader. Not moving forward means moving backward.
No wonder Soong accepted second place.
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with