The assault by former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmaker Lin Cheng-chieh (
The incident heightens concerns over whether next month's anti-Chen sit-in led by former DPP chairman Shih Ming-teh (
DPP supporters plan to travel to the sit-in to oppose the anti-Chen protesters. The already frosty feelings between the two camps have deteriorated as a result of weeks of renewed mud-slinging. There is, as always, the potential for things to get out of control.
Shih and his followers have a perfect right to express their opinion on these matters. But why does a 24-hour sit-in need to last weeks instead of a few days? Shih has said that the purpose of his rally is not just to make a point. Rather, it is to achieve a specific result that he and his supporters feel is necessary -- Chen's resignation.
This issue is therefore about a lot more than protecting the freedom of speech of Shih and his supporters. The question begs itself: What makes Shih and his supporters so special that much of a capital city's government district should come to a standstill for so long and the spirit of the Constitution be trampled on to entertain his and their demands?
No matter how one justifies the sit-in in ideological or administrative terms, this action at the end of the day is a form of political coercion, not a phase of spirited debate. What happens when Chen does not resign? Will Shih pack up his things and go home, or will he continue to use mass mobilization to encourage the ignoring of democratic processes?
It is the duty of city officials to approve and reject the nature and time of a rally. In this case, has Taipei City adequately weighed up all of these factors to reach a balanced decision that protects freedom of speech and the interests of the city and the nation?
This is an open question, and it is disturbing that the correctness of the decision depends so much on events that are yet to take place.
As Taipei mayor and open supporter of the protest, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
So many of us seem to refuse to compromise on matters in a manner that we demand of others. This is especially the case with those who trumpet their self-righteousness to the public.
And those who dare to disagree are not just expressing a dissenting opinion; they are absolutely wrong and become objects of hatred and resentment.
The prevalence of this attitude indicates a lack of maturity within and the volatile nature of this nation's democracy. The rivalry between different groups in this country feeds off this extremism, and this is cause for concern for those who hope that a more stable common ground can be built up for the benefit of all citizens.
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