As the recent focus of legislative bickering in Taiwan seems to be centered on money, the pensions of former presidents, salaries of government ministers, houses viewed by the president's family and so on, one would think that there could only be one winner.
After all, the battle is being fought between the world's once richest political party, who fled to an island with nothing -- apart from the contents of the National Palace Museum and probably China's cash reserves -- and enriched themselves at the expense of the local inhabitants over the next 50 years, and a party formed from a fledgling democracy movement made up of a few lawyers who only came into being about 20 years ago. If the Democratic Progressive Party play it right, there should only be one winner in this battle.
But casting one's mind back to last year's US presidential election, a battle on national security was fought between a decorated war hero, who signed up voluntarily to fight in an unpopular war and distinguished himself in battle and a guy who deserted from the home guard (not even the real army), and the coward won.
This just goes to show that in modern politics, with all the spin whizzing around, that you can never trust the people to make the right decision. One can only wait and hope that Taiwan's electorate can see through the blue smokescreen being created for the upcoming elections.
On a side note, in an article (Ma hits the campaign trail for KMT, Oct 23, page 3) you referred to Lien Sheng-wen (連勝文), Lien Chan's son, as a pan-blue heavyweight. I hardly think that his recent election to the Central Standing Committee immediately qualifies him for this title. Could it be he was given this description because he is the son of the recently retired KMT chairman, or the other more likely possibility is that you were referring to his well-publicized battle with his own waistline?
Henry Blackhand
Taipei
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