Lien Chan stuck in the past
Chinese Nationalist Party Chair-man Lien Chan's (連戰) recent remarks emphasize the stark differences between his mindset and that of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). In England, he advocated a new "one China" policy under the Republic of China (ROC). He draws inspiration from a Tang dynasty poet who demanding personal loyalty of officials to the emperor. He eulogized Soong Mayling (蔣宋美齡), Madame Chiang, in New York by praising her efforts to "battle against totalitarianism and
oppression."
Lien's mindset seems stuck on mid-20th century China and not on present day Taiwan.
In contrast, Chen demonstrates a different perspective. His remarks during his recent trip to the Americas focused on human rights, democracy and a place for Taiwan in the international community. Taiwanese will have to decide next March whether they want a president who will lead them to a mythical nostalgic past or one who focuses on present-day, 21st century Taiwanese issues.
Kenneth Choy
Hong Kong
Vicious attack on free speech
I am a US citizen who has spent most of the past 20 years in Taiwan. I do not have the right to vote here, and do not support any local political party. How-ever, the events and images of the past few days have been so disturbing that I must speak out.
In the midst of the controversy over negative advertising and CD-ROMs featuring both pan-blue and pan-green political candidates (not to mention the excitement over Taiwan's baseball team), many people here seem to have missed a disturbing new trend: vicious and coordinated attacks on free speech, which have the potential to take Taiwan right back to 1979 and the Kaohsiung Incident.
When the pan-blue camp files a lawsuit against former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and even the actors involved in making a VCD attacking People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) and his colleagues, and when Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) threatens to sue to the DPP over a negative ad, these actions show a frightening lack of respect for free speech, however distasteful it may be.
Moreover, when a PFP legislator, accompanied by representatives of the Taipei City Gov-ernment, leads the police in a series of raids aimed at confiscating copies of said VCD, any-one who knows even a little bit about Taiwan's modern history will immediately begin to think that we have returned to the dark days of dictatorship.
Even if this VCD is in some way illegal, there are thousands of illegal and/or pirated CD-ROMs, DVDs, VCDs, etc floating around Taiwan's markets. Why confiscate just this one? The answer is obvious: because it offends the pan-blue leadership. In Taiwan, this is usually called "selectively prosecuting a case."
The fact Soong and Ma are among the leading actors in this drama is particularly ironic. Don't they remember what their enemies have so often accused them of having done during the 1970s, when Soong was in charge of the Government Information Office and any voices of opposition were being suppressed because they were in some way "illegal" or "seditious?"
In today's democratic socie-ties, political figures are frequently the targets of all manner of criticism.
When Ronald Reagan was US president, he was attacked unmercifully by left-leaning members of the entertainment industry. When former US president Bill Clinton was embroiled in the Lewinsky scandal, everyone had a field day spoofing him. Did either of these leaders sue their antagonists or order records of these attacks to be confiscated? To the best of my knowledge, no.
Today, President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are subject to incessant lampooning and lambasting. Have they tried to silence their attackers? To the best of my knowledge, no.
For a democracy to function properly, its political elites must display tolerance and patience. If one is criticized, one either ignores the attack or tries to improve; one does not muzzle the critic. The pan-blue camp seems incapable of true democratic behavior, and if the Lien-Soong ticket wins next year's presidential election, I think that we can all look forward to its leaders receiving 21-gun salutes on every tour of a township or county that they make, while any and all criticism of the new order will be ruthlessly suppressed.
In other words, we will be living in a new Orwellian age of terror, where all free speech is equal, but some free speech is more equal than others. The sacrifices of Huang Hsin-chieh (黃信介), Lin I-hsiung (林義雄) and many others who fought for Taiwan's democratization will have been in vain.
In the end, however, there is very little we foreigners can do, and that is the way it should be. The decision about who will rule this beautiful island will soon be in the hands of the Taiwanese people. It will be interesting to see the results.
Paul Katz
Taipei
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