Youth key to nation’s future
As the post-election dust begins to settle, one has to hope that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) bloodbath is going to bring about real change.
It was rather disappointing that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) apologized to only the KMT membership for the massive defeat. He should have apologized to the whole nation for his inept leadership and questionable political platform.
In fact, had this election taken place in Australia or the UK, Ma would have found himself out of a job.
Maybe that is what needs to happen.
If he is so concerned with the legacy he is set to leave behind, maybe he should consider resigning and allowing the seeds of real change to germinate and begin to grow.
However, acknowledging ones faults and making required changes is not big on his list of things to do.
Particularly noticeable during the election campaign was how the real faces of some old KMT members were finally presented in the true light of day.
I cannot recall an election that sparked this much divisiveness.
Former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) openly hoping for a “return to the good old days” was particularly scary. Good old days? When and where were they? Or is he wishing for an unimpeded return to power by the KMT where the party line “ruled,” and pockets were filled. Chan also found it fit to refer to his son’s opponent as a “bastard” during the election campaign.
All this coming from a man who most call, at best, “a collaborator with the PRC [People’s Republic of China]” and, at worst, “a traitor to Taiwan.”
The “return to the good old days” hopefully has been stopped for good. The nation does not need any more of the divisiveness that reared its ugly face.
Yes, differences of opinion are good for a nation and can spark constructive debate. However, personal attacks, race baiting and outright smear tactics have no place in the nation’s politics.
It is my hope that the new mayors of Taipei, Taichung and Kaoshiung, acknowledge the younger generation who made this change possible. They have ideas and need to be included in decisionmaking processes. To exclude them is done at one’s own peril. They will remember.
Tom Kuleck
Greater Taichung
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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