Although everyone was aware that it would fail, the pan-blue camp's second motion to recall President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) went ahead and was defeated. In just four months, the same motion has been proposed twice, as if the pan-blues treat presidential recalls like a child's game. This would never occur in other democratic nations.
The actions of both pan-blue legislators and leaders of the anti-Chen campaign demonstrate that the anti-Chen campaign is not about opposing corruption or seeking to transcend the blue-green divide, but rather that it is just another pan-blue strategy -- possibly with support from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) -- to topple the Democratic Progressive Party government.
Although it is well known that the rift between the KMT and the People First Party (PFP) has widened to an almost irreparable extent, the two parties still appear united in support of the anti-Chen campaign. Following the KMT's failed attempt to recall Chen, the PFP filed a second recall motion. KMT Chairman and Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) gave the green light to the anti-Chen demonstrations, and on Oct. 10, PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) stood shoulder to shoulder with the KMT when PFP and KMT legislators tried to scupper national day celebrations.
Those who have shown support for Chen and participated in demonstrations opposing the anti-Chen campaign do not tolerate corruption, but instead convey two messages.
First, they uphold democratic principles and the rule of law, and support Chen's completion of his presidential term as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Second, the pan-green camp must work to protect its interests in its confrontation with the pan-blue camp.
However, the decision by the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) to take a neutral stance is troubling and will have at least three negative consequences.
First, it sends the message that the pan-green camp is split. The KMT and the PFP have joined the CCP to bully Taiwan's government, and pose a challenge that even a united green camp would have to work hard to overcome.
Second, the TSU's decision may help foster the pan-blue camp's illusion that it can split the pan-green camp with more presidential recall motions and push the TSU toward the pan-blue camp.
Third, the TSU's decision to remain neutral may cause the party to loose the support of pan-green supporters.
When the pan-blue camp was attempting to recall Chen for the first time in June, the TSU made an effort to distance itself from the DPP by casting invalid ballots in the legislature. At that time, I urged TSU legislators to emulate their DPP counterparts and abstain from voting. That would have sent a clear message that the green camp is united and would have minimized the pan-blue camp's illusions.
Recently I participated in some talkshows and found that most callers were strongly opposed to the behavior of Shih Ming-teh's (施明德) red-clad followers. At a forum organized by the TSU in Pingtung, the audience made it clear that supporting Chen meant supporting the pan-green camp and Taiwan.
Regrettably, the TSU still cast ballots in last week's presidential recall motion to maintain what they claimed to be a neutral stance. In reality, neutrality does not exist in politics.
Regardless of whether it is the TSU or the most senior political leader, ignoring the pan-green camp's interests and public opinion because of party infighting could be bad for everyone on the pan-green side. Today, the pan-green camp cannot afford a split, nor can the TSU afford to remain neutral.
Cao Changqing is a writer based in the US.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS