The opposition parties' sensational campaign to recall President Chen Shui-bian (
US political scientist Dennis Wrong pithily remarked that when a politician claims to act in the public's best interest, the appropriate question to ask is, "Who really stands to benefit?" The political reality, Wrong observed, is all too often one of politicians being manipulative and concealing the fact that their actions benefit the privileged few.
The effort to oust Chen was doomed from the beginning and so is the effort to topple the Cabinet, begging the question of why the pan-blues are destabilizing society in the pursuit of an untenable agenda. In seeking to recall Chen, both Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
In turn, this begs several other questions: Who will benefit from this pan-blue agenda? Who is cashing in on the allegations leveled at Chen's family and aides? The short answer is Soong but not Ma.
Chen remains completely unscathed by the pan-blues' attempts to unseat him, and the recall motion and plans to topple the Cabinet have instead served to rally the pan-greens around their president. Ma initially opposed the recall of Chen and instead advocated a vote of no confidence in the Cabinet to take the edge off Soong's call to remove Chen, but then changed his tune to support the recall motion. Soong has not only successfully secured an admission ticket to the year-end Taipei mayoral race by proposing to oust Chen, but he has also managed to make Ma a scapegoat for opposing the no-confidence vote.
Soong has once again placed himself directly in the limelight. However, this does not mean that Soong has outperformed Ma; he has merely upstaged him. That Ma lacks key political skills is common knowledge. Recent events have further demonstrated that he also lacks leadership ability, and his claims that he is a tough party leader are beginning to ring hollow. Ma did not wish to launch a presidential recall bid at first due to his fears that Soong would use the bid to hoard pan-blue voters.
To counterbalance Soong, Ma had little choice but to seek to topple the Cabinet. Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (
The stakes are especially high in light of the fact that PFP and KMT legislators alike are unwilling to risk their jobs by forcing the Cabinet to resign en masse -- and the issue is dividing the KMT. If Ma wields his power to push for a vote of no-confidence in the Cabinet, he might very well split the KMT into opposing factions, a move that would seriously diminish his authority.
Soong accurately assessed that KMT legislators did not support Ma's call for a no-confidence vote but rather wanted to support the recall campaign. He took advantage of those KMT legislators opposing the no-confidence vote by saying that if the recall motion failed, the next step would be to topple the Cabinet. He thus turned a situation disadvantageous to the PFP away from the PFP and toward the KMT, making Ma support the recall motion over toppling the Cabinet. This placed responsibility for opposing a no-confidence vote on Ma and took the pressure off Soong himself.
The recall motion against Chen illustrates how a political has-been like Soong can manipulate a highly popular figure like Ma. What's more, Soong has effectively marginalized KMT Taipei mayoral candidate Hau Lung-bin (
Soong has abandoned any scruples that he may have had left and bet the house to win the Taipei mayoral race. The recall motion was a dud, but it made enough of a bang to throw Ma and Hau off balance. Soong's real reason for the recall charade, however, is to put on a good warm-up act before for the real show: the year-end mayoral race.
Chin Heng-wei is the editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
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