On Friday, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal filed by former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (
In another lawsuit filed by Lien and Soong against President Chen Shui-bian (
These two lawsuits, the one against Chen and Lu and the one against the commission, were the first of their kind. Equally unprecedented was the amount of social resources diverted into these lawsuits, not to mention the level of social unrest and disturbance surrounding them. For example, the enormous cost incurred in conducting a total recount of the ballots cast in the election, a total of NT$60.10 million (US$1.8 million), was paid by the Taiwan High Court -- except for the NT$17.22 million paid by Lien and Soong -- meaning that the taxpayers picked up the tab.
Of course, Taiwan is a democratic country subject to the rule of law, so Lien and Soong had every legal right to file their lawsuits. On the other hand, these two men are not ordinary citizens; they are political leaders in whom the people have entrusted important powers. In this regard, they need to be politically accountable for every action they take -- including filing such unprecedented legal actions against the head of state and the CEC.
Unfortunately, both men have repaid the trust of the voters with utterly irresponsible behavior. The lawsuits were brought because these two leftovers from the days of martial law have a sense of entitlement. They simply could not believe -- or accept -- that it was possible to lose last year's election. In truth, they still haven't gotten over their individual losses in the 2000 presidential election.
Not one shred of credible evidence turned up in support of the government "conspiracies" or "cover-ups" they alleged about last year's election and the the election-eve assassination attempt on Chen and Lu -- now known to have been carried out by a Lien-Soong supporter -- while the alleged large-scale tampering with the ballots by the government turned out to be isolated, minor clerical and administrative errors by individuals.
Without an inkling of semi-credible proof supporting their allegations, how could they have decided to file these lawsuits? How could they destroy the sense of legitimacy in the entire constitutional process in the eyes of their supporters simply because the system failed to give the result they wanted? Their actions were irresponsible. In some countries such actions would have been seen criminal -- seditious libel. And all to prolong political careers which should have been over the day they lost last year's election.
Lien's career is over anyway, now that he has reluctantly stepped down as KMT chairman. As for Soong, his political influence has rapidly declined to the point that it could hardly be damaged any more.
The feud between Chen, Lien and Soong that started with the 2000 presidential election has finally come to an end. However, those hoping that inter-party hostility and obstructionism could be replaced by cooperation remain disappointed. Under the new leadership of KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the
RSS