Back in May, the National Policy Foundation, a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) think tank, produced a 20-page pamphlet entitled Bulletgate. Recently, reports have said it was distributed to US congresspeople, think tanks and the media. Since the serious accusations in the pamphlet have had a negative impact on Taiwan's international image, the issue has immediately attracted much discussion in Taiwan.
It is hard to understand why the pan-blue camp resorted to the kind of curbside propaganda it is using regarding the shooting of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮). It is also hard to understand why it has continued to use it ever since the March 20 election defeat, and has seen fit to distribute this hackneyed propaganda in US political and media circles. Are the pan-blues simply seeking revenge, or do they have some other agenda?
Using propaganda that was appropriate on the hustings as the official party platform is reckless and takes no account of unintended consequences. The sensational language employed by the pamphlet may be of use in helping the pan-blues vent their anger at losing the election, thereby maintaining a state of heightened emotions among supporters. But the tone of the booklet uses extravagant language to make a case that is based on unsubstantiated rumors. When people in the US learn for themselves that the content of the booklet is false and misleading, how can the pan-blue camp hope to win the trust of officials in the US again?
The presidential elections took place four months ago, but the pan-blues still don't understand that their best recourse is to calmly wait for the results of the official investigation and court hearings. Instead, they are constantly coming up with ill-conceived, baseless accusations that cannot stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.
This is certainly not the way to win respect and sympathy. If the US government, Congress or the media decide to take a position regarding the election-related litigation, it will only be after the judiciary has completed its investigation and released an official report on the matter.
The case brought by the pan-blue camp challenging the validity of the election is being considered by the judiciary; the results of the recount demanded by the KMT and the People First Party (PFP) will also be released soon, as will the report on the March 19 shooting by Henry Lee (李昌鈺), the forensics expert -- sanctioned by the pan-blue camp -- who was brought to Taiwan to study the case. That the KMT-PFP alliance should choose this period, prior to the release of these reports, to hype up stale, one-sided propaganda makes one suspect that they are afraid the results of the reports will not be favorable to them, and hope to muddy the waters while they can.
The US election battle in 2000 between President George W. Bush and former vice president Al Gore is still fresh in our memories. Gore's defeat, no matter how unjust he felt it was, hinged on the fact that he had no direct evidence of malfeasance in the Florida polls. He accepted his defeat and even today is still praised by some as a model of democratic grace.
But when Americans see Lien Chan (連戰), a former vice president, and James Soong (宋楚瑜), a former provincial governor, as incapable of following the example of virtuous predecessors, or even exhibiting the basic respect for democracy by waiting patiently for the results of the judicial investigation, instead spreading nonsensical rumors attacking the administration, how can they not be disgusted?
Maybe the pan-blue camp has once again underestimated the wisdom of the Americans. Through their irrational and irresponsible actions, Lien and Soong have shown the US and the international community that the miracle of democracy that they see in Taiwan does not have its roots in the pan-blue camp. The Bulletgate fiasco is merely another example of this.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS