Not only did Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) not accept their defeat in this year's presidential election, but they also deliberately sought to whip up their disgruntled supporters' emotions to create a riot. Their behavior not only damaged the country, it also hurt the two men's public approval ratings, which plunged more than 20 percent. In short, their antics nearly destroyed their political careers.
Why wasn't Lien capable of admitting defeat? We perhaps could have predicted that beha-vior from his "pure Chinese" stance -- emphasized during his visit to the US -- which makes him believe in a culture with zero tolerance for defeat.
The barbarity of the Chinese soccer fans at the end of the recent 2004 Asian Cup final in Beijing displays a similar belief. After China lost to Japan, Chinese soccer fans burned Japanese flags, besieged the Japanese team buses, and shouted for the extermination of all Japanese devils.
In both sports competitions and democratic elections, there are three fundamental principles: to abide by the rules of the game, compete peacefully and accept defeat gracefully. Both the behavior of Lien and Soong and the riot of Chinese soccer fans in Beijing were the result of ignoring these foundations of civilized sport and society. Whenever they encounter an unfavorable situation, such people invariably throw a tantrum. For them, whether it's in sports or elections, it's not a competition of skills or popularity, but a chance to see who has the best dirty tricks.
We have witnessed the inability of Chinese soccer fans to accept defeat before. In the summer of 1985 in Beijing, after the Chinese soccer team lost to Hong Kong in the World Cup qualifier, Beijing's soccer fans became violent -- looting shops, damaging cars and injuring foreigners.
This inability to tolerate defeat originates chiefly from feelings of inferiority and arrogance. The arrogance comes from China's long history, its rich territory and its soaring economic development in recent years. There is a self-inflated mindset which cherishes the illusion that the 21st century is a century for Chinese people. But at the same time, many Chinese people think their country isn't superior enough to be truly respected by international society -- and therein lies their inferiority complex.
Not being able to accept losing means having no confidence in winning again. Only by resorting to emotional behavior can these sore losers soothe the feelings of inferiority brought by defeat.
Permitting such irrational display of feelings in an individual can lead to tragedy. In a nation it can bring calamity. If the Chinese government continues to support and incite the fanatic sentiment of nationalism, it will one day bring catastrophe on itself.
Cao Chang-ching is a writer based in the US.
TRANSLATED BY LIN YA-TI
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