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.
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS