On Tuesday, a brawl broke out between a group of Hakka protesters and some ethnic-Hakka opposition legislators at the Legislative Yuan over the pan-blue camp's plan to freeze 80 percent of the budget for the Cabinet-level Council for Hakka Affairs. An explanation from two ethnic-Hakka legislators -- Chun Jung-chi (鍾榮吉) and Chung Shao-ho (鍾紹和) -- saying the opposition had withdrawn the motion to freeze the budget, did little to allay the anger of the Hakka protesters. According to media reports, the two received a few punches and kicks from the protesters.
Everyone knows the machinations of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-People First Party (PFP) alliance. Hakka voters have long been staunch supporters of the pan-blue camp. Now, worried about an apparent shift in their support, the KMT-PFP alliance tried to freeze the Hakka council's budget in an attempt to cut off the council's resources so that the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have no Hakka card to play in the election campaign.
Their action reminds us of one of the pan-blue camp's biggest campaign slogans: ethnic reconciliation. Speaking in Taoyuan, one of the Hakka strongholds, KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) on Saturday accused the DPP of discriminating against Hakka people. His remarks were a stark contrast to the opposition camp's attempt to freeze the council's budget. The KMT-PFP camp apparently thinks Taiwanese voters are dumb.
Only disadvantaged groups and victims of discrimination are qualified to talk about "ethnic reconciliation." It is laughable that the KMT, after exercising White Terror and authoritarian rule for decades, is now suddenly espousing ethnic reconciliation in the election campaign.
The KMT has been very good at creating taboos and using them as their protective umbrella. In the past authoritarian era, under the "everyone is Chinese" assimilation policy, people were distinguished by their "provincial ancestry" from cradle to grave, but they were not allowed to discuss ethnic issues. Today, the authoritarian system is gone, but the KMT continues to mobilize the local media, most of which is controlled by mainlanders, to create another ethnic taboo. Whoever dares to challenge this taboo is a sinner.
Ethnic issues involve vested interests, the power to interpret history, the power to guide culture and the power to allocate resources over the past half century, as well as Taiwan's ultimate problem -- a review of national identity. A political party which committed crimes in the past is now calling for "ethnic reconciliation" and wants everyone to love each other and forget about past grievances. This political party is still very good at propaganda and political manipulation.
Recently, we saw the establishment of an "Ethnic Equality Action Alliance" led by internationally renowned film director Hou Hsiao-hsien (侯孝賢). At a press conference to launch the group, National Taiwan University professor Hsia Chu-joe (夏鑄九) quoted the words of Lee Hsing-chang (李幸長), a dumpling franchise operator, accusing pro-DPP voters in southern Taiwan of boycotting his shop and causing his income to fall by 15 percent because he had opposed the DPP government's education reforms. Hsia used those remarks as proof that the DPP was engaging in ethnic mobilization.
Hsia and Lee's accusations are low and shameless. Most people in southern Taiwan do not know Lee, who is not that famous. Their accusations only proved that some people with a strong ethnic consciousness are trying to hide it and accusing others of harboring ethnic consciousness. This has got to be what is most hypocritical and most laughable about the opposition alliance and this ethnic equality alliance.
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing