President Chen Shui-bian (
This is arguably the case. Over the years Chen has proven indefatigable on the hustings and a formidable opponent for those without his energy. The 2004 presidential election showed that Chen could appeal to millions of voters who had voted against the DPP in local elections.
One problem with Chen -- and it has been this way from the first days of his presidency -- is his faltering sense of strategy. There have been myriad examples of Chen building momentum on an issue, only to blow it all on inexplicable actions and turns of phrase that alienated allies and fortified enemies.
Today, we are beginning to see this self-destructive behavior re-emerge just in time for the legislative and presidential elections thanks to an ill-advised broadside against Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), based on the words of Ma's late father engraved on his urn allegedly supporting China's unification.
This is specious and repulsive politicking on Chen's part. Worryingly for the DPP, Chen seems unaware that attacks on politicians for the perceived sins of their parents can backfire badly.
It is bizarre that Chen would adopt a strategy based on indecent assumptions of family accountability when Ma's track record -- the things Ma has done for which he is solely responsible -- is fodder enough for political purposes.
Chen rightfully took responsibility for the single most damaging event to his government: the failure to capture the legislature in late 2004. He did so by resigning the party chairmanship -- a move that was highly appropriate considering that the loss was a strategic debacle. The DPP treated the poll like a presidential election, focusing on cross-strait sloganeering instead of local candidates and developing strategies for the then multiple-member districts.
Now Chen is chairman again, and the results so far have not been impressive. DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (
Instead of concentrating on the fate of DPP candidates, Chen is wasting his time sniping at Ma over what his father had engraved on his urn. This is even more laughable given that in the months before his death, Ma's father, Ma Ho-ling (
How the "sins of the father" can be credibly employed in this situation defies reasonable analysis.
Chen has strayed into such politicking before, never more memorably than when he exploited the misuse of Taichung Mayor Jason Hu's (
Ma Ying-jeou himself has sunk so deep into the gutter lately that sympathy for him on this matter should be tempered. But that doesn't excuse Chen.
One thing a "lame duck" president can do is exert a positive influence on the political environment by maintaining personal integrity and reminding the public of fundamental questions: What is good for a country? What contributes to a more productive political discourse? And how should Taiwanese conduct themselves for the betterment of all?
But now that Chen is adopting nonsensical and demeaning tactics to attack his foe, his chance to pave the way for a better environment has gone, and possibly with this some of the key support for the DPP that he obtained four years ago.
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
Sitting in their homes typing on their keyboards and posting on Facebook things like, “Taiwan has already lost its democracy,” “The Democratic Progressive Party is a party of green communists,” or “President William Lai [賴清德] is a dictator,” then turning around and heading to the convenience store to buy a tea egg and an iced Americano, casually chatting in a Line group about which news broadcast was more biased this morning — are such people truly clear about the kind of society in which they are living? This is not meant to be sarcasm or criticism, but an exhausted honesty.
Much has been said about the significance of the recall vote, but here is what must be said clearly and without euphemism: This vote is not just about legislative misconduct. It is about defending Taiwan’s sovereignty against a “united front” campaign that has crept into the heart of our legislature. Taiwanese voters on Jan. 13 last year made a complex decision. Many supported William Lai (賴清德) for president to keep Taiwan strong on the world stage. At the same time, some hoped that giving the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) a legislative majority would offer a
RSS