Double standards have long been a part of Taiwanese politics. This is particularly apparent when it comes to criticism directed at the nation’s politicians. More often than not, the intensity — or lack thereof — of criticism depends on which side of the political spectrum a politician hails from.
The shooting incident involving one of former vice president Lien Chan’s (連戰) sons, Sean Lien (連勝文), vividly demonstrated just how ludicrous the double standards are for political figures from different camps.
The election-eve shooting at the rally of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) councilor candidate Chen Hung-yuan (陳鴻源) in Yonghe (永和), Taipei County, on Friday left one innocent bystander dead and Sean Lien injured. A bullet reportedly entered the left side of Sean Lien’s face and exited near his right temple.
The incident is reminiscent of the shooting on the eve of the 2004 presidential election, in which bullets grazed the stomach of then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and hit then-vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) in the knee.
Immediately after the shooting of the two Democratic Progressive Party candidates running for re-election, KMT politicians and pan-blue political commentators blasted it as a political ploy aimed at winning sympathy votes.
Asking how Chen survived and questioning why he was still able to walk after being hit, many suspected Chen of staging the shooting. The pan-blue camp painted any shooting-related comment by the DPP as an attempt to manipulate the public, with the KMT urging voters to use their ballots to punish the DPP. With the slogan “no truth, no president,” the KMT called on Chen to let the public see his wound, release his medical treatment records and allow opposition members to view his injuries to substantiate the claims that he was shot.
Now that the tables have been turned and the victim is a KMT member, the pan-blue response is totally different. Brushing aside claims that Friday’s shooting was staged, the pan-blue camp attributed it to “extreme good luck” that Sean Lien survived the gunshot and was able to flash a “V” sign for victory on his way to surgery. It also dismissed criticism that Lien Chan’s comments at Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin’s (郝龍斌) rally shortly after the shooting were politically motivated and described the comments as selfless and commendable. Moreover, when the pan-green camp called for Sean Lien to make public pictures of his injuries and X-rays, the pan-blue camp accused the opposition of lacking any shred of humanity and demanded respect for Sean Lien’s privacy.
The glaring absurdity of the double standards applies to both camps — the pan-blue camp called on voters to punish the DPP when the victim was a pan-green politician (Chen), and again called on voters to punish the DPP when the victim was a pan-blue politician (Sean Lien.) This bizarre pan-blue logic seems to suggest that whatever happens, it’s the DPP’s fault and that the DPP needs to be punished.
Some may argue that the shootings were different — Chen was a president seeking re-election and Sean Lien was not even running for election. However, Sean Lien’s injury garnered such intense media attention because of his influential family background; hence it is reasonable to compare the two.
Best wishes to Sean Lien for a speedy recovery. However, in view of the brazen double standards applied to Chen and Sean Lien, the credibility of the people now chiding the DPP seems suspect, especially when recalling how these same people dogged Chen after the shooting six years ago.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS