President Chen Shui-bian (
Many observers say Lee's decision to go public at that moment helped Chen gain the votes to win by a narrow margin in the three-way presidential race against James Soong (
Chen certainly owes Lee an apology for letting him down (though the political value of a public apology remains dubious). Lee took risks to support Chen. As head of the Academia Sinica and the first native Taiwanese to win a Nobel Prize, Lee commands enormous respect and exerts considerable influence in this country. Moreover, he had little to gain personally from taking his stance. Nor did he have much to gain if Chen did well. Perhaps, as an academic, he still had a strong sense of idealism that prompted him to express his support. However, because of Chen's less-than-satisfactory performance, Lee has been criticized for supporting him. In addition to becoming a scapegoat for the pan-blue camp, Lee's image as an impartial academic who rose above petty politics and self-interest was tarnished.
Chen owes even more of an apology to those people who have voted for him in the last two presidential elections -- including those who were influenced by Lee's support. Those swayed by Lee were mostly those who identify with Lee's neutral and impartial image -- the so-called moderate voters.
After Chen apologized, some pro-blue-camp commentators were calling for Lee to apologize to the general public for Chen's performance. But does Lee really owe the public an apology?
The answer would depend on whether those who voted for Chen would have voted for him knowing what the next six years would bring. Can anyone say with confidence that Taiwan would be a much happier and less corrupt place if Lien or Soong had been elected in 2000?
Were Lien elected, Taiwan would have continued under the rule of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), a party that had never had the experience of being out of power in Taiwan, and it would not have been taught a lesson in democracy. Perhaps the KMT might have fumbled less in terms of handling domestic affairs, but there would have been little incentive for the party to do something about the black gold politics that the party cultivated over decades of murky links between the state, the party, the private sector and local gangsters.
As for Soong, his departure from the KMT came about simply because he wanted to be president. There is little reason to suspect that he would have behaved any differently from the KMT if he had been elected.
A change in power for the country was essential. Some may argue that Taiwan was not ready for this in 2000. But growing up early is better than growing up late. Just because Chen and the Democratic Progressive Party did not perform well does not mean that voting the KMT out was a mistake.
Chen and the DPP do owe its supporters an apology -- and now that it has been made, it's time to move on and work harder. Either way, Lee need apologize to no one.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS