Lien's bait and switch
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
First, in his debate with President Chen Shui-bian (
However, in my opinion, Lien is sending a message that `"If I am elected as president, I will proceed with unification with communist China," which is the only enemy Taiwan currently has. So after unification,Taiwan will no longer have any imminent enemy -- hence compulsory military service will no longer be needed.
I hope the media and the voters will carefully analyze the hidden motives of a head of state who thinks that Taiwan would not need military power to protect the country's sovereignty.
Second, in an interview with Eastern Television, Lien pledged to donate his salary to charity if he is elected. Lien's gesture is truly laughable. If he is truly concerned about poor people, especially students who could not afford college tuition, he would surely long ago have returned the KMT's vast assets to Taiwan's government and people, to whom they legally belong.
Lien instead hid his party's assets by investing in a trust fund operated by a Swiss bank ("KMT says it'll move its funds to Switzerland", Jan. 23, 2003, page 3). No wonder foreigners have second thoughts about investing in Taiwan because Lien himself has no confidence in his own country.
Third, the KMT announced that it would hold a 313 rally to drum up support and to promote anti-"black gold" and anti-corruption.
This is hypocrisy. The KMT's corruption has been known around the world for decades, and black-gold politics is the party's specialty -- all documented in the history books.
So if Lien or his party is hoping to regain the trust of the people, he should be bold enough to return the party assets, not his future salary, to the people to whom they are long overdue.
Finally, I wish there were a third referendum on the ballot to ask the voters the following: "Should persons who own property outside of Taiwan be allowed to run for president?"
Kris Liao
California
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS