It is true that elections often drive people crazy. And when it comes to the upcoming presidential election in Taiwan, anything crazy and even illogical can happen. Politicians can simply throw away their long-time adherence to certain viewpoints and change their tune, without further exploration of what led to the about-face.
A classic example is the pan-blue camp's candidate, Lien Chan (
Lien's recent embracing of the "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait dictum and his inclusion of Taiwan's independence as one of the options for Taiwan's future relationship with China displayed the pan-blue camp's acceptance of main-stream opinion in Taiwan. Nevertheless, the failure to explain the rationale behind such a sudden change of heart on the issue of national identity showed Lien's lack of responsibility as a potential national leader.
While publicly embracing pragmatism and moving away from his consistent policy of unification with China, Lien admitted that he is not capable of making a decision to decide the future of both sides of the strait in this particular election. That's why he will leave the issue of cross-strait relationships to the next political generation.
Lien insisted on maintaining the status quo and opposed the idea of immediate independence. To some extent, Lien's new position on cross-strait relationships is a manifestation of the majority opinion, that is, to maintain an independent and sovereign statehood. However, the real intention here is a tactic to put aside any talk of "one China" before the March election. As Lien himself said, "it is not good campaign language at this point."
Therefore, the strategy to delay or to postpone the sovereignty issue has nothing to do with whether the issue can be solved at this moment, but rather centers on Lien's way of interpreting the so-called "1992 consensus," or the notion of "one China with individual interpretation."
Lien made two huge mistakes by incorporating this strategy. First, without elaborating on the reasons behind the change, Lien owes the voters a candid explanation of why the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) abruptly accepted the idea of independence as one of the possibilities for future cross-strait relations. Moreover, is there already consensus on this from within the pan-blue camp? Or is it simply an electoral scheme to avoid being labeled as pro-unification? Can Lien stick to such a promise once he is elected?
Second, Lien, in his shortsightedness, overlooked the need for a national leader to provide 23 million Taiwanese with a vision for future cross-strait relations. To be a responsible leader, Lien should clearly identify his position, like his counterpart Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has outlined his. The voters will make their decisions based on the policies and blueprints that the candidates offer.
A political leader should take the temperature and monitor the pulse of the times in which he lives. With humility, he must tailor his style of advocacy according to his findings. He must make sure his style matches the public's mood. The fact is, more and more people are in favor of the status quo but recognize that Taiwan is separate from China. This is the actual status quo.
The next president of this country bears the responsibility to recognize this fact.
Most importantly, the key to the future cross-strait relationship lies in the fact that the people of Taiwan have the right to decide their own destiny. Leaving such a tough question for the next generation to tackle, as Lien supports, is not something that our generation should do.
Liu Kuan-teh is a political commentator based in Taipei.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS