ON DEC. 6, before the Chinese inscription ziyou guangchang (
An agitated driver ran his truck into a group of reporters, leaving a TV cameraman seriously injured and five others slightly injured. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) blamed each other. The democratic spirit and the respect and tolerance that comes with it was all but absent, leaving only shouting and fights.
As a result, TV reports were filled with foul language and someone even threatened to kill the family of another person. We can't help wonder if it isn't pan-blue and pan-green politicians who have forced things to this state of affairs.
Contrasting the clashes between the supporters and opponents of the switch with the awkwardness of police, I could only see how two major parties care about their own interests and have little concern for the general public. It seems as if two trains were on a collision course, with the politicians in the driver's seat showing no signs of slowing down, instead encouraging the "brave Taiwanese people" to jump on their train.
Ministry of Education Chief Secretary Chuang Kuo-jung (
In the seven years the DPP has been in power, it has had numerous opportunities and public support to promote transitional justice. Still, reform has either ended up as empty slogans or not been properly followed through by irresponsible politicians.
For example, when the DPP just took over, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) could have taken advantage of the high public support and the power that came with his position to force the KMT's Party History Center to make public all the documents from the Martial Law era, or investigate the perpetrators of the White Terror era. However, the DPP proceeded to treat victims perfunctorily by simply talking about reform and falling back on "discounted justice." The party has turned every anniversary of the 228 Incident into a chance to gain extra currency by using victims' families.
Today, with the approach of legislative and presidential elections, transitional justice that could have been deeply meaningful to Taiwan's democracy has been turned into a cheap election slogan. Perhaps the DPP is serious about it this time, but the question is how many people will be willing to believe their election rhetoric again.
Changing the name of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall was legitimate from the perspective of transitional justice, but just as former United Microelectronics Corp chairman Robert Tsao (
A telephone survey conducted by a local TV station found that the number of people supporting the Taipei City Government was much higher than those in favor of the ministry, which shows that the public has been immune to the "reforms."
However, KMT politicians shouldn't be happy either, because the pan-blue camp's actions have also been seen through by public -- for example, when former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) joined hands to pay tribute to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), their obstruction of the arms procurement budget and their proposal to amend legislation covering the Central Election Committee.
With each side in Taiwan claiming "absolute moral legitimacy," communication is impossible, and verbal as well as physical violence might come to be seen as justifiable. The "the third force" that wishes to break out of the pan-blue and pan-green box is either being marginalized or turned into a follower of the CCP.
Think about it: If former president Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) talk about a local-oriented two-party system and a left-right two-party system and Tsao's suggestion of a cross-strait peaceful coexistence act can be so badly misinterpreted, then how will the public be able to prevent the two trains from crashing into each other?
The conflict at the "democracy square" is just the beginning. Since neither the pan-blue nor the pan-green camp can afford to lose next year's elections, there is an even bigger conflict ahead of us.
Huang Ter-yuan is a doctoral candidate at the Sun Yat-sen Institute of Social Sciences and Humanities at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Ted Yang
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS