On victory and defeat
A sense of foreboding pervaded society in the days after Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate — and sitting President — Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) recent re-election victory over Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). Mindful of the debt of gratitude Ma owes Beijing, voters — in both the blue and green camps — are now bracing for Ma to pay the piper.
Taiwanese tycoons with heavy investments in China became bare-knuckled purveyors of Beijing’s coercion in the waning days of the election. Nobody knows how many of Ma’s votes are the result of such unbridled threats.
Conversely, more than 6 million Taiwanese flocked to Tsai’s cause. In addition to ballots, they brought campaign donations — sometimes in spite of the meagerness of their own means.
The fact that nearly half of Taiwan’s voters would defy Beijing in such a manner should put to rest the derogatory notions that Taiwanese lack gallantry and that Taiwanese only worship money. It is apparent that millions of them not only can’t be bought off or intimidated, but stand ready to sacrifice for Taiwan. That is a force with which any power who seeks to harm Taiwan in the future must reckon.
That will also be the reason why Ma can’t deliver what he might have promised Beijing, at least not without disastrous ramifications for both Taiwan and China.
However, in the instance that Ma shows his reluctance or inability to back up rhetoric with the most rudimentary substance — such as inking in black and white the so-called “1992 consensus,” not to mention a cross-Taiwan Strait peace accord — the relationship between the Chinese Communist Party and the KMT will take a nosedive.
There isn’t much chance Ma will follow such a relatively benign script, not while Beijing is salivating over the potential Ma’s continuing reign over Taiwan might bring.
It is far more likely that Ma will pony up according to Beijing’s dictate. The 6 million-plus Tsai supporters will not have much choice but to rise up and stage a protest with an intensity commensurate with a life-and-death struggle. Taiwan’s stability could be put in doubt at a certain point, not unlike what took place in many of the countries that were caught up in the Arab Spring.
Taiwan’s situation is no less complicated, thanks to its strategic value.
At a hint of ungovernable turmoil, Beijing will jump in head first. Washington, assisted by Tokyo, will inject enough assets to perpetuate the struggle and to deny China the luxury of ever using Taiwan as a secure military base for its Pacific strategy.
For Washington, this would be a strategic maneuver that would prove successful — while costing little compared to what is being expended in the current US venture in Afghanistan. The Soviets’ decade-old occupation of that once tranquil land and the accompanying drain of national energy was believed to be one of the main factors that contributed to the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
Such reasoning might help shed some light on the US government’s baffling position, when Washington seemed eager for Ma to accommodate Beijing with slim regard for Taiwan’s security.
The West believes that a neutral and independent Taiwan is essential for regional stability. They would like to force Beijing to come to that same conclusion, eventually.
However, what happens in the interim could destroy Taiwan and ruin Taiwanese lives for perhaps several generations.
Therefore, the only viable option that might still be available to Taiwanese at this stage is to thwart Ma’s attempts at political concession to Beijing before it is too late — a herculean task nevertheless.
Los Angeles, California
Burger King Taiwan on Wednesday last week posted an update on Facebook advertising a new “Wuhan pneumonia” (武漢肺炎) home delivery meal, catering to customers hankering for a Whopper, but who wished to avoid visiting one of its outlets. “Wuhan pneumonia” is the term commonly used in Taiwan to describe COVID-19. Beijing has been waging an extensive propaganda campaign against the use of the words “Wuhan” or “China” in reference to the novel coronavirus, calling it racist and discriminatory. Meanwhile, Chinese officials have claimed that the coronavirus might have originated in the US. The intention is obvious: to distract attention from the Chinese Communist
Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force Shaanxi KJ-500 airborne early-warning aircraft and Shenyang J-11 fighters on March 16 conducted a nighttime exercise in the waters southwest of Taiwan and, in doing so, came close to the nation’s air defense identification zone. Three days later, the PLA Navy’s fleet for Gulf of Aden escort mission sailed north in the Pacific off Taiwan’s east coast via the Miyako Strait on its way home. Meanwhile, the US carried out freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea and assembled the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group with the Expeditionary Strike Group to conduct
Italy, Spain, France, the UK and the US are all depending on social distancing to fight COVID-19 and have fallen into terrible situations, with mounting positive cases and many deaths. Social distancing might flatten the curve, so that the peak is not so high that hospitals are overwhelmed with patients, the problem is that the pandemic could extend further into the future, hurt the economy more and become unbearable for society. Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and Singapore have controlled the spread of COVID-19, and the main reason is that most Asians wear masks. It can be illustrated as follows: If someone contracts the
Having returned to the UK late last year and with a Taiwanese spouse remaining in Taiwan, I have been afforded the chance to compare and contrast the UK and Taiwanese governments’ responses to the COVID-19 crisis. My early conclusions are that Taiwan benefits from a rational, competent government, which quickly recognizes, adapts to and confronts large-scale disasters. It is led by a government that does more than just talk of respecting democracy and human rights, one that is scrutinized and responds to criticism, one that is concerned about public opinion, and one that is used to dealing with emergencies on