Premier Su Tseng-chang's (
This line of argument was previously used by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
It is repeated today with the double standard expressed through KMT Legislator Hong Hsiu-chu's (
To which I ask Hong, on what basis? In both cases, past and current political figures at nearly all levels of the national administration, working within a state structure inherited from a corrupt authoritarian government, have been the beneficiaries of certain funds over which far less than rigorous accounting has been exercised.
The President is indicted over embezzlement but prosecutors ignore former KMT chairmen Lien Chan (
The a historical and illogical reasoning of Su and Hong is symptomatic of Taiwan's rapid development, which symbolically and physically has rapidly built over history that is unpleasant to the eye or the mind, or which might later be evidence of deep scale corruption amongst ruling elites on all sides of the political spectrum.
Forget history! Build for the future! But what future? In what country? Under whose rules? I believe it is deeply destructive and counter-productive to disregard, simplify, apologize away or sensationalize history. It also undermines any current attempt to establish an honest political and judicial system that has integrity.
Premier Su's comments fall into the trap of the apologist, for which he can be rightly criticized, offering as he does universal absolution without requiring any repentance or future intent of honesty on the part of the still living guilty.
However, the current shambles of politicians and media egoists running around slapping each other with lawsuits is also an unsustainable form of democratic expression and simply reveals itself for what it is, a cut-throat, winner takes all, zero sum game for Taiwan, whether conducted legally or physically.
It is unsurprising that Taiwan struggles to come to terms with it's past and find it's identity. Many of the leading countries in the world face a similar problem. The Taiwanese can choose to emulate Premier Su, and my neighbor, who proudly wears a German Wehrmacht World War II motorcycle helmet as a fashion accessory, oblivious to and uncaring of it's historical context, or they can choose a more constructive approach.
Since compromise is often an end result of war, why not start at that position? One idea could be to declare a general amnesty for all government officials at all levels, including the president.
This would be done in lieu of a referendum on a new Constitution and national title, fresh elections for all national governmental positions (with incumbents prevented from running), the restructuring of the national government with a clear separation of powers, the establishment of an independent military that is loyal to the polity of Taiwan and not the Republic of China and an amnesty for the KMT and their assets, should they rescind their pledge of unification (read economic opportunism) and recognize and swear loyalty to Taiwan whether they are the ruling or opposition party?
In this way, Chinese elites and their assets would not be threatened and in return they would be required to share the burden of living in, protecting and nurturing this country in the face of China's imperial ambitions (read internal disintegration).
Ben Goren
Kaohsiung
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