President Chen Shui-bian's (
On the night of the election, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
Lien's astonishing remarks raised the curtain once again. Since the night of March 20, pan-blue supporters have massed in front of the Presidential Office, demanding a recount and the truth behind the shooting incident.
Remembering that supporters of People First Party Chairman James Soong (
Lien's demand for a recount is not unreasonable, given that according to the official tally he lost by so few votes. And because Lien's call for a recount stands on the solid ground of law, the Taiwan High Court has ordered that all ballot boxes be sealed nationwide. But now that Lien's lawsuits are being processed, there is little else to do but wait for the machinery of the legal process to settle the election dispute.
If, on the other hand, we let emotion override reason, the problem will remain unresolved.
A tiny margin is, after all, an undeniable difference. The rules of democratic politics are not set by a single party alone. For example, the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Law (
Each party within a democracy is obliged to accept election results. One cannot refuse to accept the outcome just because one believes that the the election was unfair.
In light of this, the fact that Lien and Soong have led supporters to march to the Presidential Office, called for their supporters to congregate and protest in violation of the Assembly and Parade Law (集會遊行法) -- which was enacted by the pan-blue-dominated legislature -- and have shown no regard for Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) repeated appeals for the crowds to disperse, makes one feel that they are letting their emotions get the better of them.
I am afraid that the majority of voters in Taiwan will not find this acceptable.
The pan-blue camp is willing to resort to legal means, demanding a recount and the sealing of ballot boxes and vowing to file a lawsuit to have the election annulled -- so why are they incapable of obeying the Assembly and Parade Law? If Lien and Soong abide by the law only insofar as it suits them, how can we expect them to rule this nation by law? How can they justify their demands?
The gravity of the problem goes way beyond this. The political gatherings over the past few days have come dangerously close to rupturing ethnic harmony.
Chen's re-election bid was endorsed by at least half of the electorate. A handful of politicians can refuse to recognize his victory but they must not brand him a liar or demand that he step down. Is doing so conducive to social stability?
The election result reveals overwhelming support for the pan-blue camp in northern Taiwan and support for the pan-green camp in the south. This phenomenon only reflects the differences in politics and culture between the north and south. But a handful of politicians have openly suggested that the north and south separate and build their own nations. Is this conducive to ethnic harmony?
Even before all the facts about the assassination attempt on Chen could be determined, they boldly asserted that it was a staged drama in a dirty election. Is this rational?
Despite demanding that their supporters remain rational and peaceful, they are stirring up people's emotions, wanting them to carry out a long-term fight amid wind and rain. Is this how responsible political leaders should behave?
Lien's not delivering a concession speech was understandable, even though it demonstrated a lack of democratic spirit.
Destroying partisan relations is also understandable because politics necessarily involves power struggle.
But if the pan-blue side incites people to take to the streets just because of the miniscule margin by which Chen won and lets a handful of politicians play up irresponsible issues to undermine ethnic relations, then this is unforgivable.
Some religious leaders have called for reason and mutual respect -- in direct contrast to some politicians' wild appeals and the gestures of hatred and the bloodshot eyes that we have seen on TV.
Those who love this nation and society watch with bleeding hearts.
Xiang Yang is an associate professor of indigenous languages at National Dong Hwa University.
Translated by Wang Hsiao-wen and Jackie Lin
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