It's been more than a month since the election, yet the government and opposition are still creating instability. They have done nothing that they should have done, and lots that they shouldn't have. The pan-blue camp needed to do some soul-searching, but instead they're focusing on internecine feuds.
No matter how much Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) soils his post-election record, it just can't be any worse than that of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜). Being sore losers is one thing, but disruptive and bizarre behavior is something else. It's little wonder that Ma is keeping his distance from the pan-blue hawks.
After Soong sniped at Ma, Soong's supporters followed with a barrage of invective. Some said Soong had "endured" Ma for too long, while others said Ma had been taken for a sucker by a scheming President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). Some said Ma was like a babe in the woods, others said he couldn't stomach a fight. Yet others said he was no saint, so why not smack him around a bit?
All these criticisms, as it happens, are true. But is it really profitable to gang up on Ma at this stage? The only possible explanation for this is the dirty logic of internecine fighting -- if you can't beat the enemy, beat up your own.
The KMT really should have cleaned up its act after its defeat four years ago. But those who should have been replaced are still there, and the things that should have been done remain, at best, half-finished. If it weren't for the fact that Chen has done a pretty bad job these past four years, a good chunk of the public would have no longer been able to pin their hopes on a KMT revival.
The KMT was always going to have to set a generational change in motion -- even if they won the election. But having lost, all of those who should have been kicked out -- especially Lien -- have stayed. And they all give the same reason for staying: With electoral lawsuits unresolved and November's legislative elections nearing, they still haven't "ful-filled their responsibilities." They "asked permission to resign and are awaiting their orders," as if the KMT would crumble without them.
In the past, the party's mainstream faction fought off other factions, causing the party to effectively divide into three. Now that the localization faction is fighting everyone else within the party, we can expect the party to splinter yet again, if not expire altogether.
For its part, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) should have maintained a low profile in the aftermath of the election, not to make concessions, nor to silently and patiently suffer, but because this is what is required of responsible government, especially one that has narrowly escaped defeat.
The idea of 500,000 people attending the presidential inauguration ceremony runs against this. There should not be 500,000 people attending, nor even 200,000 people. When the DPP first took power four years ago, there weren't 500,000 people at the inauguration.
Now, after a narrow win owing to two bullets, this overkill will result in the nation's largest-ever presidential inauguration ceremony. Why? Do they want to compete with the pan-blues? Vent pent-up resentment? Or do they want to put on a show for the Chinese and the Americans?
The Taiwanese people have had to put up with hardship and disruption caused by politicians not doing what they ought to do and vice versa.
If the past month is a harbinger of what we can expect for the next term, then we can only sigh and say that life is indeed a struggle.
Wang Chien-chuang is president of The Journalist magazine.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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