Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei mayoral candidate Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) recently criticized former minister of health and welfare Chen Shih-chung’s (陳時中) entry into the Taipei mayoral race, likening Chen’s ambition to Sima Zhao’s (司馬昭) ill intent in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms (三國演義), and advised Chen not to mix politics with disease prevention.
Chiang added that if Chen wanted to throw his hat into the ring, he owed Taipei residents an explanation.
Chiang’s statement is downright ignorant and democratically illiterate.
Chiang could not have been more wrong in using the historical allegory about Sima Zhao. The story gave birth to the idiom “Everyone on the street knows what is in Sima Zhao’s mind” (司馬昭之心, 路人皆知), meaning that a person’s supposed hidden intention — in the original story, usurping the throne — is so well-known that it is not really hidden.
As Taiwan is a democratic society where people cast their votes for their preferred candidates, it is highly inappropriate to compare Chen’s entry to Sima Zhao’s story. The egregious and preposterous comparison only reveals Chiang’s ignorance and lack of magnanimity. This kind of remark would have voters questioning whether the KMT’s authoritarian legacy still looms in Chiang’s mind.
Furthermore, if one were to use the same allusion to make up the following sentence: “When Chang changed his surname to Chiang without the permission of the Chiang family, everyone on the street knew what was in ‘Sima Zhao’s’ mind” — would Chiang think it was appropriate?
Politicians should be prudent and responsible for their remarks; otherwise, their words could always come back and bite them. Any reckless and irresponsible remarks would only bring disgrace upon the politicians themselves.
After years of direct elections, the Taiwanese public has a better understanding of democracy, and candidates should strive to keep up with society.
As a candidate of the biggest opposition party, Chiang should come up with policies and blueprints for Taiwan’s capital instead of living in a parallel universe and feeling smug about it. Injudicious, indiscreet, short-sighted remarks would only fail to win him support.
Lee Shang-ju
Taipei
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS