When it became clear that US President George W. Bush had won a second term, many of my American friends' disappointment was obvious. Many people in the US told me that if Bush won, the US would not be the place to be anymore. And many people outside of the US told me they aren't going back for another four years.
It goes without saying Senator John Kerry has shown himself to be a true disciple of democracy in conceding defeat, accepting the fact that whilst it was a close race, nevertheless the majority of voters had opted for Bush.
Many commentators have pointed out that Bush won, not over foreign policies, the economy or taxes, but on moral values -- on his opposition to gay marriage and his constant presentation of his leadership as a matter of religious faith and principle. In effect, the Republican Party mobilized the conservative forces to vote in this record turnout election.
Across the Pacific Ocean on the same day, Taiwan's High Court rejected a lawsuit contesting the March presidential election and upheld President Chen Shui-bian's (
Pan-blue legislative candidates said things along the lines of: "I know your disappointment in the bias and untrustworthiness of our legal system. The courts have disappointed us by yielding to political pressure. But do not let your emotions get carried away. Instead turn your sadness into votes in the legislative elections."
The poignant similarity between the 50-50 social division in US and Taiwan is understandable: the public has their beliefs and a right to their choices. But the parallel stops there.
Deliberate distortion of fact and of the image of the justice system by these vote-hungry legislative candidates take Taiwan back 200 years. Considering that it has been less than 20 years since the birth of democracy in Taiwan, this chaotic state might be forgivable. But from a legal perspective, one can only give a long sigh. The opposition invariably claims im-proper conduct in elections when they lose. Now they are also claiming improper legal proceedings, downright bias and political maneuverings after they lost the legal suit. Everything is wrong and unfair, unless it's in their favor.
But these politicians' claims do not stem from an inability to accept the fact that they lost the presidential election, nor a lack of faith in the integrity of the legal system -- but because by making such claims, the public's emotions can be manipulated to gain votes.
I feel much the same as my Democratic friends who want to abandon or leave the US. I too, would like to block out the scenes created by the selfish politicians in Taiwan, who, simply because it might get them more votes, have no concern for the damage they are causing to the fundamental rule of law in the country. But just as I would tell my US friends that while the majority of the voters walk on the "right" side of the political spectrum now, the liberal values held by the younger generation will overcome the old conservative values in the days to come. Perhaps I should say that to myself about Taiwan.
Although the pro- and anti-independence division will exist as long as the cross-strait situation stays the same, there will still be a younger generation who can be more logical and discerning in face of the machinations of selfish politicians. But how long will it take for these vote-hungry politicians to grow up and respect democracy and the legal system of this country?
Wen Wei-ni is a freelance writer based in Taipei.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS