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
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS