I simply cannot understand the rationale behind the agenda of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
At the macro level, such chaos would be detrimental to the country's economy. Investors and tourists would be turned off by such ugly scenes. Does Lien want to destroy Taiwan's economic progress?
Lien has craftily distorted the principle of democracy by claiming that he wants to safeguard Taiwan's democracy. Leaders and advocates of democracy would never seek to incite their supporters to create chaos simply because of their own self-interests.
When former US vice president Al Gore lost in a controversial and debatable manner in the 2000 presidential election, he gracefully conceded defeat and conveyed his best wishes to his rival, George W. Bush. Gore did not seek to incite his supporters to create chaos or social unrest, despite the fact that he won the popular vote.
Lien did not win the majority of votes but yet he had the audacity to voice his disapproval of the election result. I urge Lien and Soong to learn more about the principle of humility from President Chen Shui-bian (
At a time when Taiwan needs to unite to face the challenges ahead, two old and sore losers refuse to acknowledge their failure at the polls. I had thought that the message from Taiwanese at the polls was clear -- the majority had rejected the Lien-Soong ticket.
If Lien and Soong refused to acknowledge reality soon, I won't be surprised if their parties face a voter backlash at the year-end legislative elections. Not only are they destroying Taiwan, their actions are also destroying their own parties.
Regardless of what tricks or antics Lien and Soong decide to come up with next, I will be in Taipei next month to witness the inauguration of Chen and Vice-President Annette Lu (
Voters have twice rejected them, in 2000 and this year, but they have refused to acknowledge this fact. Perhaps they need a third message from the voters in 2008? By then, I would think their margin of defeat would be much larger, simply because voters would be turned off by their naive and silly antics.
Jason Lee
Singapore
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