Although everyone was aware that it would fail, the pan-blue camp's second motion to recall President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) went ahead and was defeated. In just four months, the same motion has been proposed twice, as if the pan-blues treat presidential recalls like a child's game. This would never occur in other democratic nations.
The actions of both pan-blue legislators and leaders of the anti-Chen campaign demonstrate that the anti-Chen campaign is not about opposing corruption or seeking to transcend the blue-green divide, but rather that it is just another pan-blue strategy -- possibly with support from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) -- to topple the Democratic Progressive Party government.
Although it is well known that the rift between the KMT and the People First Party (PFP) has widened to an almost irreparable extent, the two parties still appear united in support of the anti-Chen campaign. Following the KMT's failed attempt to recall Chen, the PFP filed a second recall motion. KMT Chairman and Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) gave the green light to the anti-Chen demonstrations, and on Oct. 10, PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) stood shoulder to shoulder with the KMT when PFP and KMT legislators tried to scupper national day celebrations.
Those who have shown support for Chen and participated in demonstrations opposing the anti-Chen campaign do not tolerate corruption, but instead convey two messages.
First, they uphold democratic principles and the rule of law, and support Chen's completion of his presidential term as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Second, the pan-green camp must work to protect its interests in its confrontation with the pan-blue camp.
However, the decision by the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) to take a neutral stance is troubling and will have at least three negative consequences.
First, it sends the message that the pan-green camp is split. The KMT and the PFP have joined the CCP to bully Taiwan's government, and pose a challenge that even a united green camp would have to work hard to overcome.
Second, the TSU's decision may help foster the pan-blue camp's illusion that it can split the pan-green camp with more presidential recall motions and push the TSU toward the pan-blue camp.
Third, the TSU's decision to remain neutral may cause the party to loose the support of pan-green supporters.
When the pan-blue camp was attempting to recall Chen for the first time in June, the TSU made an effort to distance itself from the DPP by casting invalid ballots in the legislature. At that time, I urged TSU legislators to emulate their DPP counterparts and abstain from voting. That would have sent a clear message that the green camp is united and would have minimized the pan-blue camp's illusions.
Recently I participated in some talkshows and found that most callers were strongly opposed to the behavior of Shih Ming-teh's (施明德) red-clad followers. At a forum organized by the TSU in Pingtung, the audience made it clear that supporting Chen meant supporting the pan-green camp and Taiwan.
Regrettably, the TSU still cast ballots in last week's presidential recall motion to maintain what they claimed to be a neutral stance. In reality, neutrality does not exist in politics.
Regardless of whether it is the TSU or the most senior political leader, ignoring the pan-green camp's interests and public opinion because of party infighting could be bad for everyone on the pan-green side. Today, the pan-green camp cannot afford a split, nor can the TSU afford to remain neutral.
Cao Changqing is a writer based in the US.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
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