Recently some pan-green academics and social activists organized a forum to challenge Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (
Would Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) participate in the same kind of forum? Would pan-blue intellectuals challenge Ma by following the same strict standards? Judging from the KMT's conservative and feudal history and its current campaign strategies, the possibility is probably very low. However, we feel this is a danger to Taiwan's democratic elections. For a long time, voters have voted for a candidate without knowing much about him or her. Should we allow this phenomenon to continue?
As a presidential candidate at this crucial juncture in Taiwan's history, Ma should accept a challenge in the same way as Hsieh did and clearly answer the following questions.
First, clear the air on the green card issue. A green card is a document that grants lawful permanent residency in the US, a prerequisite to immigrating to that country. That he applied for and received a green card indicates that Ma attempted to immigrate to the US in the 1970s when Taiwan was in a difficult situation.
This may not be a big issue for the general public, but as a possible national leader, we need to know what Ma was thinking at the time. Why did he consider leaving Taiwan? Is Taiwan no good?
Second, after losing power, all authoritarian parties have had to undergo a thorough reform process before regaining power. Ma should tell us how the KMT has changed during its eight years in opposition and what he did during his term as party chairman.
Why were the "black gold exclusion clauses" changed to allow him to run for the presidency? Why has he supported local factions with bad records during so many elections? If he was incapable of reforming the KMT, how could people trust him in managing the transformation of the entire nation?
Third, Ma lacks any outstanding achievement since he entered politics. This is ample evidence that he lacks administrative and executive capabilities. This lack of ability is worrying and causes people to lose faith in him.
The KMT is a 100-year-old party with extremely complex internal interests and conflicts, so how could Ma be sure that he would be running the country? Does he know what has happened to the party's ill-gotten assets or the ins and outs of the party's sale of its media companies -- the China Television Co, the Broadcasting Corp of China and the Central Motion Picture Corp? Can he be sure that he is not just a puppet of some more powerful force?
Fourth, over the past eight years the KMT has accused the DPP of cooperating with business conglomerates, but the KMT's relations with these conglomerates doesn't seem more virtuous.
For example, when Taipei Bank and Fubon Financial Holding Co merged when Ma was Taipei mayor, he illegally dismissed the Taipei Bank labor union chairman who was opposed to the deal. This clearly tells us that Ma will choose powerful business conglomerates over disadvantaged workers.
Worse yet, the draft amendment to the Labor Union Law (
Fifth, Ma has said he is Taiwanese to the death. Despite this, he has repeatedly promoted unification. Isn't there a contradiction in there somewhere? Is the word "Taiwanese" a regional or a national identification to him?
Could it be that his current claim to be a Taiwanese is aimed at eventually achieving his goal of becoming Chinese?
Some may argue that the forum to challenge Hsieh was simply an election ploy, but I am not going to dignify that with a refutation. I only hope Ma could also employ such "election ploys" and resolve these question marks hanging over him.
Yao Jen-to is an assistant professor in the Graduate Institute of Sociology at National Tsing Hua University.
Translated by Ted Yang
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
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS