It has been over four months since the presidential election. But it's irritating that Taiwan's society is still in the shadow of the election dispute. Although President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) took office on May 20 and have started to perform their duties in accordance with the law, the opposition fought stubbornly against them in continuous protests.
The shooting of the president and vice president on the eve of the election caused an uproar in this country. In response to the matter, independent Legislator Sisy Chen (陳文茜) announced on Thursday that she would establish a group called the "Plaza" by late next month, to train talent to look into the case, and to participate in the related lawsuits. But even the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has kept its distance from her this time, as everyone knows by now that Sisy is not an asset to the pan-blue camp. Rather, her latest scheme is aimed at boosting the momentum of the newly established Taiwan Democratic School as the year-end legislative elections approach so it can attempt to absorb pan-blue votes.
The shooting has even caused an uproar abroad. The pan-blue camp produced and distributed a pamphlet entitled Bulletgate to make baseless accusations against the government and its handling of the case. Unfortunately, the pan-blue camp does not trust the investigation in its current form, or the legal system in charge of the ballot recount. Bulletgate will not help us to discover the truth or solve the election dispute. It will only damage Taiwan's international image. As for the dispute over the election result, after the ballot recount by lawyers from both sides under the supervision of the Taiwan High Court is completed, we must await the court's final ruling. But the pan-blue camp's legal team called a press conference on Thursday, claiming that a total of 907,164 electoral irregularities were discovered during the examination of voter rosters nationwide, and that such irregularities took place in 99.34 percent of the polling stations.
These figures released by the blue camp are shocking, but prior to their release, there had been no debate on the findings and the judges have yet to make their ruling. It was little more than a unilateral declaration by the pan-blue camp's lawyers. And there are other facts in these figures. First, the recount could change the election outcome by 7,655 votes -- so even if all these votes were for the pan-blue ticket, it is still far too few to overturn the election. At this point, they have no hope of overturning the legitimacy of Chen's re-election.
The pan-blue lawyers have also emphasized irregularities in the voter rosters, which is an attempt to pave the way for further litigation to nullify the election result. Even though the Taiwan High Court has not yet begun to hear the case, the pan-blues are already preparing a second legal battle.
In their endless resistance, one cannot help but admire the persistence of KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜). Even people within the KMT are getting tired of this obstinate struggle, which is blocking the way to internal party reforms. Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and KMT Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) have both made a point of distancing themselves from the election controversy, so it is hardly surprising that the majority of voters are fed up with this endless controversy.
Democratic politics is built on the foundation of doing what is best for the majority of people. Politicians should therefore think about what will benefit the the public and not just their own personal agendas. The pan-blues' insistence on keeping up the struggle over the presidential election is likely to not only hurt their performance in the legislative elections, but will also harm Taiwan. Lien and Soong remain stubbornly defiant, even as they put Taiwan's welfare on the line. Does this count as a good political decision?
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath