In an article of mine published several years ago, I referred to Sima Qian’s (司馬遷) Records of the Grand Historian (史記). When a pro-independence friend asked me why I had referred to Chinese history, I responded that while this friend was anti-China, he still knew more about the Chinese than the Chinese themselves.
For example, the Japanese study an opponent’s strong points so that they can overcome them, but the Chinese think themselves superior to their enemies and, consequently, are continually falling short of the Japanese.
It is crucial to understand an enemy’s strong points, but many pro-independence supporters look down on their enemies.
Who the People First Party’s (PFP) presidential candidate will be remains unclear. The pan-green and pan-blue camps have evaluated the situation and, while the winner of the presidential election is a mystery, it will definitely not be Kaohsiung Mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜).
His core supporters are persistent, but that base cannot be expanded, so he cannot gain enough votes.
The pan-green camp criticizes everything about Han, saying that he knows little, lacks common sense, speaks without thinking and makes many promises that he cannot keep, but no one seems to be asking why he has so many hardcore supporters.
Han’s supporters can be found among those who favor unification and oppose the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). This raises the question of why they have picked Han when there are so many other politicians around.
When candidates began to campaign for the Kaohsiung mayoral election, Han trailed far behind DPP opponent Chen Chi-mai (陳其邁), implying that he was not doing too well, but by the end, he had picked up momentum.
How did this happen? A closer look reveals that Han and his hardcore supporters are similar in temperament and disposition, even down to the coarse language they use, but he became one of the masses, instead of just imitating them.
To become one of the masses, it is critical to adopt their language — this is the weak link of the pro-independence camp, whose members are fond of creating special vocabulary that only distances them from ordinary people and makes it difficult to gain supporters.
During the 1990s, I developed a great rapport with the people of Kaohsiung, and some of my friends from up north asked how I had accomplished that, to which I responded that when you spend time with members of the public, you adopt their language and habits, becoming one of them instead of behaving as a leader.
In the past, I often talked about Taiwanese independence, gaining many listeners and readers, but later, I turned toward political analysis and moved away from talk about independence.
Then, several years ago, I was asked again to talk about it at a World Taiwanese Congress, although it had been more than 10 years since I had been asked to do that.
To my surprise, people did not want to hear about Taiwanese independence, they wanted to tell me about it.
In the past, people liked erudite people, but these days they want people who are like themselves. They used to like to listen, but now they want to do the talking.
Anyone who thinks they can win votes by providing incisive analysis is a victim of wishful thinking.
Chen Mao-hsiung, a retired National Sun Yat-sen University professor, is chairman of the Society for the Promotion of Taiwanese Security.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
RSS