The controversy over former Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) legislator Lai Shin-yuan’s (賴幸媛) appointment as Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) chairwoman is significant because it involves sensitive cross-strait issues. The main problem, however, is the unspoken misunderstandings between the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the TSU as well as between president-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰). It is to a certain extent also linked to former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝).
The DPP and the TSU have not seen eye to eye since the protests aimed at unseating President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) two years ago. There was even talk of a third force emerging. It was thought then that Lai was the person most able to influence Lee and the TSU. Her appointment has led to speculation that she and the TSU have colluded with Ma for a long time.
The KMT has reacted even more strongly than the DPP, with some even calling Lai’s appointment “the restoration of the ‘Lee Teng-hui path.’” Such reactions are understandable because the deep-blue members, in particular the Mainlander bigwigs, thought Ma’s visit to Lee was for show. They never thought that Ma could be discussing such an important post.
Lien and his supporters are also displeased. They could swallow Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) chairman nominee Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) not being given the premiership; after all, he is 76. But they find it unacceptable that Chiang would have to listen to Lai. How could they accept this? Could it be that the recent meeting between Lien and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) was just for show?
Calling Lai’s appointment a restoration of the Lee Teng-hui path, however, is nonsensical. What does this mean? Lee broke with the DPP because he thinks the promotion of Taiwanese independence is no longer necessary. His role in the deep-green camp shifted two years ago. What version of Lee’s direction are they referring to?
Of course, Lai’s appointment is probably not what Ma said it was — a matter of letting Lai represent the 5.44 million voters who voted for the DPP. It is probably an attempt to use Lai to control Lien, only Ma cannot say this in public. Then there is the question of how long Lai will be able to keep the job.
What direction will Lai take? Although she said she agrees with the cross-strait policies of Ma and vice president-elect Vincent Siew (蕭萬長), these policies are changeable. Based on her work in connection to Taiwan’s accession to the WTO and her concerns as a legislator about the influx of Chinese products, we can assume that as MAC chairwoman, she will probably focus on economic issues while Ma will control the political direction.
When dealing with cross-strait economic issues, Lai will focus on pro-Taiwanese interests, and she will not agree with Lien’s “joining hands with China to prevent Taiwanese independence.”
Based on this interpretation, the DPP should conditionally support Lai’s appointment and support her when the blue-camp legislators create problems for her, rather than clinging to past misunderstandings with the TSU.
At any rate, the fact that Lai, rather than a KMT member, will head the MAC means there is less of a risk that Taiwan will surrender to China. At present, the KMT worships China and Taiwan is on the verge of a crisis. The pan-green camp should cast off old antagonism and cooperate with the TSU to prevent the KMT from controlling Taiwan by allying with the Chinese government.
Revolutionaries are never perfectly pure and the revolutionary path will never be perfectly straight.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in Taiwan.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
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