There are under six months to go until January’s legislative and presidential elections and the knives are out — against erstwhile allies.
Twelve years after James Soong (宋楚瑜) scuppered what had been expected to be the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) cakewalk through the 2000 presidential election, KMT officials and their allies in the media appear as antsy as hissing cats at the idea that he might steal away pan-blue camp voters once again.
Conspiracy theorists tired of watching their X-Files and 24 box sets are having a field day with rumors and allegations about Soong mulling another run for the presidency, or seeking a legislative seat or hashing out some form of alliance with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). It would be funny, if it weren’t giving blue supporters yet another chance for some historical revisionism.
Soong has refused to say whether he would run next year for either a district or at-large legislative seat, but some of his People First Party (PFP) officials have confirmed that the idea is being considered. Although the PFP and the KMT mended fences long enough to form an alliance in 2007, albeit under the KMT banner, it was always an uneasy grouping, with plenty of hurt feelings on both sides and complaints from Soong that he and his support base have been ignored ever since.
To hear some KMTers speak, it all boils down to the machinations of their archnemesis, former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), who they still blame for the 2000 presidential election loss to Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), not the inadequacies of then-vice president and candidate Lien Chan (連戰) or Soong’s decision to run as an independent, which split the blue-camp vote.
KMT Legislator Chiu Yi (邱毅) said Lee was pushing for Soong to run for an at-large seat for the PFP. The Chinese-language China Times also tossed out the idea that the DPP was toying with linking up with Soong and perhaps asking him to be premier if the party returned to power next year. According to the newspaper, Lee was behind the suggestion. The DPP denied the speculation.
Meanwhile, Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) blamed Lee for the introduction of “black gold” politics, while doubting that Lee’s call for people to vote for the DPP’s presidential candidate would have much of an influence because he “doesn’t keep abreast of developments in society because of his age.” Wu said it was during Lee’s presidency that Taiwan’s political culture became riddled with corruption and gangsters.
Wu was right only in one detail. It was under Lee that the term “black gold” was coined and the extent of political corruption began to be revealed because Lee was the first president and/or KMT chairman to seriously try to tackle the problem. However, the spiderweb of local factions, political patronage, business links and gangsters had been refined under successive KMT administrations ever since the party fled from China.
It was the public’s disgust with black-gold politics that fueled Chen and the DPP’s rise to power in 2000. The KMT’s attempt to nobble Soong in that election with the Chung Hsing Bills scandal did hurt him, but it hurt the KMT more.
And despite what many in the KMT believe, Lee did not campaign for Chen in 2000 or pick Lien over Soong as the party’s standard-bearer as a way to destroy the KMT; Lee went with Lien because he was seen as “Taiwanese” while Soong was a Mainlander and therefore a better exemplar of Lee’s “Taiwan First” policy for both the KMT and the nation.
Such Orwellian newspeak is nothing new for a party that for decades tried to indoctrinate the public against thinking there could be alternatives to its rule, or that continues to insist that there was a “1992 consensus” in cross-strait talks and that the DPP is more corrupt than it ever was.
What crimethink, to quote old George.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath