Most people shake their heads when they watch acts of political violence abroad. Many like to think that such acts only occur in dysfunctional societies or in countries run by dictatorial regimes, and that when it comes to Taiwan, such practices were long ago thrown into the dustbin of history.
In recent months, however, there have been hints of a return to a more violent past. Nothing has highlighted this better than Su An-sheng’s (蘇安生) kicking of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) in the posterior as the latter was entering a courthouse last month — an act that was preceded by similar attacks by the same individual against former representative to Japan Koh Se-kai (許世楷) and lawyer Wellington Koo (顧立雄). That it took three of these incidents before Su was called to account for his acts is cause for concern.
On Saturday the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) notified authorities of a postcard threatening to kill Chen and members of his family, as well as harm DPP Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), if assault charges against Su, a member of the pro-unification Patriot Association (愛國同心會), were not dropped.
It is too early to tell whether there is any substance to the threat. For radical elements like Su, however, it may now seem permissible to use violence or the threat of violence against members of the opposition. If the KMT government does not come down hard on groups and individuals who espouse violence — and the outcome of the investigation into the postcard will be a hint of the government’s willingness to tackle this — some could reach the conclusion that it does not care about the consequences.
The use of intimidation against the DPP and other members of the opposition has the potential to exacerbate the power imbalance between the KMT and the DPP, and make the task of rebuilding a coherent opposition more daunting.
When death threats are made against a former head of state, it takes much more than a meek public comment by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to convince skeptics and proponents of political intimidation alike that the KMT has once and for all abandoned the harvest from dirty tricks that characterizes most of its history.
Violence can lead to polarization and invite reciprocal behavior, as we saw when Su was attacked in broad daylight by a handful of bat-wielding individuals. Taiwan must not allow clan warfare with its use of proxies from the criminal underworld to undermine its democracy and threaten social stability. No one who cares about this nation, or who fought to liberate it after nearly half a century of state oppression, stands to gain from political violence.
The authorities must nip the situation in the bud before it escalates, and if the Patriot Association is found to be advocating violence, then it must be held fully responsible.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US