The Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) Washington office has recently distributed a propaganda pamphlet entitled Bulletgate to many US congresspeople and officials. In the 20-page pamphlet, the KMT and the PFP make accusations about the March 19 shooting incident, the launching of the national security mechanism, and the number of invalid ballots, and then question the legitimacy of President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) re-election. According to the pan-blues, the pamphlet will be constantly updated and distributed to Taiwan's "foreign friends" if new information is discovered.
In response to the propaganda, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) plans to launch a counter attack. Some even suggested that the ruling party should sue the blue camp for distributing the pamphlet in the US. The dispute over the presidential election has already entered the judicial process and the two camps should operate within this framework. However, the KMT and the PFP are obviously unwilling to be restricted by the legal process, and they want to continue the dispute politically. To be honest, the outside world can not tell the blue camp what to do to protect their interests, as long as their actions are in accordance with the law. Nevertheless, by washing one's dirty linen abroad and seeking external help during the prosecution of the legal case, the blue camp has departed from judicial norms. On the other hand, if the DPP sues the blue camp in the US, it will create trouble for itself and worsen the impact of Bulletgate on Taiwan.
As the dispute over the election continues, the power struggle among Taiwan's major political parties also continues. Taiwan's domestic affairs should be resolved domestically, without the involvement of foreign forces. Local politicians should set a good example and put their trust in the judicial system. This is the most basic respect for Taiwan's democratic rule of law. Not to mention that the people of Taiwan do not have to worry about the judicial system being manipulated by politics anymore. Even if a judicial ruling is different from what one expects, a person should not keep fighting the result. If this situation really occurs, the best way is perhaps to appeal to the voters, letting them make a fair judgement through the electoral process.
The pan-blues used the suppression of rebellion as an excuse to oppress democracy during the authoritarian era. Many democracy activists were mistreated during this period, especially in the aftermath of the 1979 Kaohsiung Incident. The government manipulated the judicial system to ensure conviction and punishment for these people. Faced with this injustice, the victims could only bear their pain and waste their youth languishing in jail.
Their sustaining of judicial unfairness, however, has finally been compensated by the voters. The victims operated through their relatives to seek public office, and they often won by a large margin. These incidents are a good example of how democracy can redress judicial injustice.
Since the March 20 presidential election, the KMT and PFP have held several mass protests and complained non-stop about the controversy of the presidential election, especially when there were foreign guests visiting Taiwan. If they really had reasonable grounds to protest, they would have received public support. But in fact, the opposite has occurred. Ever since Chen agreed to an immediate recount to show his good will, and Henry Lee's (李昌鈺) verdict that the shooting could not have been orchestrated by Chen, the majority of Taiwanese have not believed the pan-blue's accusations of electoral corruption. There have even been quite a few pan-blue voters who have advised the KMT-PFP alliance to come out from the shadow of the March 19 shooting and not live in a dream of the election result being overturned.
The true bullet in Bulletgate is directed inwards, for the incident shames both the DPP and the KMT. It also undermines our democratic achievements and hurts the welfare of 23 million Taiwanese. The KMT should open its eyes, for if it continues to despoil Taiwan, it will be taught a lesson in future elections.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations