Recently, a fourth-generation descendant of Chiang Kai-shek (
Of course, political motivations are behind such a laughable media phenomenon. Facing the "one country on each side" dictum advocated by President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), the KMT and the PFP know very well that the Taiwanese public have rejected their "one China" policy. Short of a counter-strategy, the blue camp has no choice but to raise the divine image of Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) to resist the DPP's offensive. Now, coincidentally, the Chiang family has a newborn child. Why not put a spin on Chiang Ching-kuo's grandchild and blur the unification-independence issue so that the blue camp won't have to clarify their stance.
The people of Taiwan must not allow themselves to be cheated. The unification-independence issue involves the lives and welfare of our future generations. Naturally, it will be one of the core issues in next year's presidential election. The KMT-PFP candidates must not be allowed to fudge their answers on such an important question. They should, with a responsible attitude toward Taiwan's electorate, clarify the difference between their "one China" or "one country" policy and Beijing's "one country, two systems" policy. They need to persuade people that their cross-strait policies are more in the interests of the majority than are the DPP's policies -- instead of trying to lead the public into a blind nostalgia for the greatness of Chiang Ching-kuo.
PFP Chairman James Soong (
We suggest that the KMT-PFP candidates give serious thought to Chen's "one country on each side" platform and come up with a smarter alternative, instead of holding on to the "one China" policy and using the myths of historical figures to blur the core issues of the presidential election. The hype over Chiang's grandson is basically an attempt to cheat the Taiwanese electorate. The blue camp should spell out its cross-strait policy and clarify what exactly is meant by a "one-China roof." They should also bring out their policy blue-print for improving the economy so that voters may compare it with the DPP's. Instead of indulging in a war of words, they should allow the people of Taiwan to make the most rational choice in next year's election.
The unemployment rate is now over 5 percent and the economy has been slow to recover. Under such circumstances, the KMT-PFP camp does have a good chance to win political power. Even so, what the Taiwanese electorate needs is an election oriented toward policies for the country's future development, not an election bogged down in vicious mud-slinging or wild campaign promises. The electorate indeed has the responsibility to monitor the campaign and make the March election a standard for newly arising democracies around the world.
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.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
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