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.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
RSS