With only five weeks left before the presidential election, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) nominee Frank Hsieh (
DPP supporters must be beginning to wonder whether this slow drip attack strategy is leading anywhere, because short of a bombshell announcement that Ma is concealing US citizenship -- which would invalidate his nomination and throw the electoral process into disrepute -- Hsieh has nowhere else to go.
Ma has any number of weak spots that could energize a demoralized pan-green camp: allegations that he spied on Taiwanese students while studying in the US; his weakness within the KMT and probable inability to defend the office of president against a predatory KMT-dominated legislature and his rival, Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (
But Hsieh's campaign team, packed with failed legislative candidates, has picked the lamest of options. And behind this option -- this strategy of "green card stigma" -- is the insinuation that wanting to study, work or live in the US is an unpatriotic act.
This is an idiotic message, as if it weren't obvious, and matters are made worse for the DPP in that this clumsy nationalism obscures the remarkable anti-Americanism in the hearts of KMT ideologues.
It is absurd that Ma's credibility should be at issue over the possession of a green card, given that there is nothing remotely sinister about acquiring one. Ma's weakness has instead been his response to the "allegations" -- which by turns has been prevaricating and uninformative.
But this isn't enough to stop Ma from winning the election.
Hsieh made much the same strategic mistake during his token run for the post of Taipei City mayor. Seemingly resigned to defeat against the lazy, policy-free campaign of the KMT's Hau Lung-bin (
The fact that Hsieh increased the DPP vote in that election is notable: Either he has tremendous personal appeal that can overcome flaccid campaigning, or the DPP machine did its job properly in Taipei City (a rare thing), or both. But this good fortune, and his lawyer's games, are not enough this time.
If Hsieh does not change his campaign mode soon, DPP supporters may well wonder why vice presidential candidate Su Tseng-chang (
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase