President Chen Shui-bian's (
But the question is: Has the pan-blue camp really grasped the crux of the problem? Evidently not. Lien and Soong have responded to their defeat by stirring up protest by their supporters, claiming that the election was unfair and invalid. This appears on the surface to be an attempt to overturn the results of the election, but it would do not to be deceived. The real motive for the protest is to transfer responsibility for the defeat away from Lien and Soong, riding on the wave of an emotional crowd. To put it another way, the pair's stirring up of the masses is designed to ensure their survival as leaders of the pan-blue camp.
It is equally understandable how difficult the defeat was to accept given the miniscule margin of only 0.228 percentage points. But did Lien and Soong really lose by only 29,518 votes? Again, this is far from the case. They went from collectively having 60 percent of the vote in the 2000 elections to a situation where, four years down the road, they are neck and neck with the pan-green camp. Shouldn't Lien and Soong shoulder the blame for this? The two men seem to be blaming the Democratic Progressive Party and Chen for the situation, bearing none of the responsibility for themselves.
This is hardly an isolated case as far as Lien is concerned. Consider his record. Following the 2000 election defeat he placed then-KMT chairman Lee Teng-hui (
Now we have seen the loosening of the KMT's hold on their domain. For a leader to react in this way, attempting to annul the election and hide behind his supporters, seems to be resorting to desperate measures.
Despite Lien's ability to wield the loyalty of his supporters to his own advantage like this, politics is both unforgiving and brutal. His much heralded "second transition of power" has proved to be nothing but pie in the sky, but there may be worse to come.
If the pan-blues lose seats in the year-end legislative elections, exacerbating their loss of power, this will be bad news not just for Lien but for the KMT and the PFP. Could it be that there is really an invisible hand acting behind the scenes of Taiwanese history?
Chin Heng-wei is the editor in chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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