For the past six years, the pan-blue and pan-green camps have been engaged in a bitter war of attrition.
The two sides have mutually incompatible platforms and ideologies and each has a large power base — either informally, legally or illegally.
Both camps have direct or indirect control over one or more branches of government. The Constitution was designed for a foreign country in 1911 and in the legislature the government is chosen by the head of state, regardless of whether they are from the majority or minority party.
At least two branches of government are either operationally paralyzed or inactive, while the budget for this fiscal year has yet to be passed.
The country has recently gained and lost diplomatic relationships — one each. The judiciary, meanwhile, has been politicized by both camps for strategic and party-promotional purposes.
In the legislature, bills are knowingly written or made conditional upon a concession unacceptable to the other side and, as a result, the government has been unable to effectively use the legislative process to enact its manifesto and fulfill its mandate.
The former leader of the largest opposition party, the president and the president's wife have all been accused of corruption in a climate of lawsuits fueled by speculative media reports and tit-for-tat retaliatory accusations.
One external country claims sovereignty over Taiwan and has threatened to attack while the world's largest (yet fading) superpower ambiguously influences the dispute, furthering its own geo-strategic goals.
One side has a strategy of not tolerating any development which might lead to the establishment of a sustainable native polity, yet in their actions may lie the slow death of the Old Republic and with it, any remaining justification for their own ideology.
The other side uses legal and extra-legal means to make any change, however cosmetic, that will legislatively, culturally or environmentally build the foundations for hegemony in what it regards as a transition period into a new Taiwanese Republic.
Like the opposition, it too has not been able to resist the lure of corruption, which itself could be described as having been almost institutionalized.
Without effective and comprehensive resolu
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with