Double standards have long been a part of Taiwanese politics. This is particularly apparent when it comes to criticism directed at the nation’s politicians. More often than not, the intensity — or lack thereof — of criticism depends on which side of the political spectrum a politician hails from.
The shooting incident involving one of former vice president Lien Chan’s (連戰) sons, Sean Lien (連勝文), vividly demonstrated just how ludicrous the double standards are for political figures from different camps.
The election-eve shooting at the rally of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) councilor candidate Chen Hung-yuan (陳鴻源) in Yonghe (永和), Taipei County, on Friday left one innocent bystander dead and Sean Lien injured. A bullet reportedly entered the left side of Sean Lien’s face and exited near his right temple.
The incident is reminiscent of the shooting on the eve of the 2004 presidential election, in which bullets grazed the stomach of then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and hit then-vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) in the knee.
Immediately after the shooting of the two Democratic Progressive Party candidates running for re-election, KMT politicians and pan-blue political commentators blasted it as a political ploy aimed at winning sympathy votes.
Asking how Chen survived and questioning why he was still able to walk after being hit, many suspected Chen of staging the shooting. The pan-blue camp painted any shooting-related comment by the DPP as an attempt to manipulate the public, with the KMT urging voters to use their ballots to punish the DPP. With the slogan “no truth, no president,” the KMT called on Chen to let the public see his wound, release his medical treatment records and allow opposition members to view his injuries to substantiate the claims that he was shot.
Now that the tables have been turned and the victim is a KMT member, the pan-blue response is totally different. Brushing aside claims that Friday’s shooting was staged, the pan-blue camp attributed it to “extreme good luck” that Sean Lien survived the gunshot and was able to flash a “V” sign for victory on his way to surgery. It also dismissed criticism that Lien Chan’s comments at Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin’s (郝龍斌) rally shortly after the shooting were politically motivated and described the comments as selfless and commendable. Moreover, when the pan-green camp called for Sean Lien to make public pictures of his injuries and X-rays, the pan-blue camp accused the opposition of lacking any shred of humanity and demanded respect for Sean Lien’s privacy.
The glaring absurdity of the double standards applies to both camps — the pan-blue camp called on voters to punish the DPP when the victim was a pan-green politician (Chen), and again called on voters to punish the DPP when the victim was a pan-blue politician (Sean Lien.) This bizarre pan-blue logic seems to suggest that whatever happens, it’s the DPP’s fault and that the DPP needs to be punished.
Some may argue that the shootings were different — Chen was a president seeking re-election and Sean Lien was not even running for election. However, Sean Lien’s injury garnered such intense media attention because of his influential family background; hence it is reasonable to compare the two.
Best wishes to Sean Lien for a speedy recovery. However, in view of the brazen double standards applied to Chen and Sean Lien, the credibility of the people now chiding the DPP seems suspect, especially when recalling how these same people dogged Chen after the shooting six years ago.
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama. This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent