If the pan-blue camp doesn't win the next election, its stupidity is to blame.
The pan blues' stupidity lies in its limited knowledge of today's situation, its own identity and its enemy. Among the many causes that led to the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) swift defeat by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the late 1940s, "ignorance" was one of the key factors, according to its own party elder Chen Li-fu (
Ignorance and stupidity are two different words but they mean the same. The past ignorance of the KMT and the stupidity of today's pan-blue camp make one begin to believe that "political genes" do exist and can be passed down.
The KMT has been an opposition party for almost four years. Despite its fall from power, it still acts as if it were in power, always putting up quite a front. It is ridiculous for the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to behave like an opposition party. Yet it is absolutely pathetic for the blue camp to act as if it was still in power.
Election campaigns are not about wining and dining and observing etiquette. The pan-blue camp, however, has churned out excessive formalities for the presidential election. The decision-making platform built between the KMT and the People First Party (PFP) may appear representative but in reality it is not functional at all.
Within the camp, decisions come from two, if not more, sources at the same time, distracting enough to disrupt the camp's original plan and bungle its chance of winning. Not to mention the fact that a crowd of irrelevant figures are attempting to use this mechanism to voice their opinions. So the pan-blue camp has exhausted its resources even before the real battle starts. On the contrary, the DPP has a unified decision-making body.
Interestingly, as the political figures of the KMT-PFP alliance retain their bureaucratic ways, its academics continue to be a school of eggheads. As everyone knows, campaign language has to be simple so that people can easily pronounce and remember them. The pan-blues' cross-strait policies started with their "one China roof," then "parallel development" and later "pro-peace, not pro-PRC."
These expressions may be comprehensible to academics and bureaucrats, yet for those who can immediately understand expressions like "one country on each side," these slogans sound confusing, thus failing to resonate. So the pan-blues' stupidity is even reflected in its choice of language.
Most stupid of all, the pan-blue camp has not yet formulated tactics, not to mention strategies, in the election campaign.
The pan-blue presidential candidates have not mirrored Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou's successful campaign tactic of ignoring what his rivals say about him simply because KMT Chairman Lien Chan (
In the last couple of months, the pan-green camp has mercilessly broadsided the pan-blue camp, which in turn could barely cope or fight back, thus resulting in a slump in the polls. Obviously, the pan-blues are so stupid as to choose the wrong tactics.
The pan-blue camp not only knows little about defense, it also knows little about offense. While the pan-greens launch wave after wave of attacks, the pan-blues' attempts to hit back could barely be pettier.
For example, during President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) visit to the US, the pan-blues criticized him for allegedly buying diplomacy with arms purchases and failing to get a 21-gun salute when is is clear to all that the protocol offered to Chen was in the hands of the host country.
These accusations only show that the pan-blue camp is narrow-minded and green-eyed. The pan-blue camp hurts itself with these comments, which unravel its own shortcomings as well as its extraordinary stupidity.
Conducting an election campaign is like fighting a war. The one who obtains a vantage point in strategies stands a better chance of winning. The pan-blue camp should be the one that makes advances and tries to rattle the ruling party. But now the two sides have changed places and the ammunition is in the DPP's hands. Unless the pan-blue camp changes its strategies, it will repeat its history of losing battles because of its own ignorance.
Wang Chien-chuang is the president of The Journalist magazine.
Translated by Jennie Shih
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
On May 13, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to Article 6 of the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) that would extend the life of nuclear reactors from 40 to 60 years, thereby providing a legal basis for the extension or reactivation of nuclear power plants. On May 20, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators used their numerical advantage to pass the TPP caucus’ proposal for a public referendum that would determine whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations, provided it is deemed safe by the authorities. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS