On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics.
He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to a euphemism for communist sympathizers.
The former president should clarify a few matters, because he seemed to be saying that Taiwan’s democracy has been transformed into an echo chamber, that the government is not tolerant of different ideological viewpoints and that there is no diversity of political opinions.
He suggested that President William Lai (賴清德) is a dictator and that the country’s highest court has become a tool for the administration.
He also seemed to be saying that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) was merely expressing a difference of opinion when he headed a group of 16 KMT legislators to Beijing last year to meet with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials. He dismissed accusations that Fu and the KMT lawmakers were CCP messengers or their running dogs. If not, then what exactly was he implying?
The current administration is being hamstrung and the legislature thrown into chaos by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). The defense of these malicious parties is half-baked and unclear.
With such an attitude toward current affairs, what does Chen think people should do? His speech had more than the whiff of gaslighting about it.
Why did Chen remain silent while the KMT and TPP worked together to expand their legislative powers and trample on the Constitution last year and earlier this year? Why did he not speak up when they were slashing the national budget and throwing the legislature into chaos.
Chen has previously claimed that he was persecuted for political reasons and wrongfully accused of corruption. How then is he conflating his situation with that of former TPP chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), who has been charged with profiteering and contravening campaign finance laws? Surely Chen is not recanting his claims of innocence.
History provides a record not only of the choices people make, but also who stayed silent. As the KMT and TPP continue collaborating to wreck the nation, and Fu dutifully follows mandates from the CCP, which seeks to destabilize Taiwan’s free and democratic system, Chen chooses to speak ambiguously to the CCP’s “united front” tactics and infiltration efforts.
If he truly wanted to safeguard Taiwan’s democracy and freedoms, he should speak plainly, clearly and resolutely.
Ten Len-phone is a retired radio program host.
Translated by Tim Smith
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Former Fijian prime minister Mahendra Chaudhry spoke at the Yushan Forum in Taipei on Monday, saying that while global conflicts were causing economic strife in the world, Taiwan’s New Southbound Policy (NSP) serves as a stabilizing force in the Indo-Pacific region and offers strategic opportunities for small island nations such as Fiji, as well as support in the fields of public health, education, renewable energy and agricultural technology. Taiwan does not have official diplomatic relations with Fiji, but it is one of the small island nations covered by the NSP. Chaudhry said that Fiji, as a sovereign nation, should support
RSS