The Taiwan Society's rally last Saturday was designed to show support for embattled President Chen Shui-bian (
But no sooner had the rally finished, then the pro-unification media were trying to rubbish it and gain the moral high ground -- claiming that the red masses that took to the streets the previous night were not mobilized by any group or party, but part of a broad-based civic movement that transcended party political interests.
But there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
During the first few days, there were numerous visits to the sit-in by pan-blue big hitters, such as Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
And while it was OK to berate pan-green fans and accuse them of traveling from southern Taiwan on the promise of a free lunch box, the free breakfasts, lunches, dinners, drinks and even massages handed out daily to the anti-Chen crowd hardly got a mention. Ma admitted after showing up to serve breakfast last week that the KMT had paid the bill.
Outside the Taipei Railway Station on Monday, one elderly participant remarked that the protest had now become a "Bian down" movement -- said in English but made to sound like the Chinese for lunch box -- insinuating that many attendees were at the rally merely for the free meals.
Many participants shuffle around the sit-in site wearing caps bearing the name of their favorite pan-blue politician. It is not difficult to predict what would happen if one wore a "depose Chen" T-shirt combined with a Frank Hsieh cap to this supposed non-partisan shindig.
At one side of the protest is a large printed diatribe about how former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen are fervent supporters of Taiwan independence, how they want to destroy the Republic of China and start a war with the People's Republic of China -- hardly relevant to an anti-corruption drive.
Then there are cable channels like TVBS providing 24-hour blanket coverage of the event -- interspersed with provocative "news" features on the 2004 "Orange Revolution" in the Ukraine and the Philippines "people power" movements.
These kinds of activities are hardly going to inspire pan-green fans to show up, even if they do believe the president, his family and aides have overstepped the mark.
And while the pan-blues have stopped short of any obvious mobilization efforts, everyone can see that the sit-in has now been hijacked by anyone with an axe to grind about Chen and the pro-localization movement in general.
If Shih and his people were really interested in a non-partisan fight against corruption, they would refuse to share a stage with people like Soong. If they really wanted to claim the moral high-ground they would not let people like TV-chat-show-guest-beater Lin Cheng-chieh (林正杰), a founder of the China Unification Promotion Party who associates with wanted gangsters, attend.
And if Shih's movement really wanted to advance the cause of clean politics then it would push all legislators to pass the raft of anti-corruption legislation that has been stalled in the legislature for nearly as long as the arms bill.
A genuine civic movement would be aimed at a complete overhaul of the political system, which as an engine needs oil, now needs graft to keep it ticking over. It would not just consist of a thinly veiled attack on one man, his party and his supporters. It's time to drop the masquerade.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers