Former vice-president Lien Chan (連戰) relied on his father, Lien Chen-tung (連震東), as Lien Chen-tung did his father before him. With Lien Chan’s son Sean (連勝文) now relying on his father as he takes up the family flag in Taiwanese politics, there are three generations, from grandfather to father to son. Lien Chen-tung and Lien Chan are both former government officials with an astonishing amount of wealth to their names. Sean is more pedestrian, but he has inherited the prodigious wealth, and his debut foray into the world of politics is a stab at mayor of the country’s capital, no less. It is not entirely surprising that he is being rebuffed by voters and that he is trailing in the polls.
In the face of this rather uncomfortable truth, the Lien clan has chosen to spout nonsense and vulgarities, driven to desperation as they are. Last week, Lien Chan showed his true colors behind his mask of “a man of culture” when he slandered their main rival, independent Taipei mayoral candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) by saying that Ko’s grandfather served in the Japanese colonial government and that as a third-generation descendant of such a man, Ko had received an “imperial” Japanese education and therefore dismisses everything pertaining to Chinese culture.
The Lien camp says that having wealth and power is not a sin. They have a point. Sean Lien says that being born into a rich family was not of his choosing. That is totally correct. However, whether you rely on your father, that is your own choice.
The Lien political dynasty is lent some credence by the precedents of the Kennedy and Bush dynasties in the US. Closer to home, there is the Republic of China’s founding father Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙), who also relied on his father, and former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), of course, who was in his position by virtue of who his father was, too.
The Bush dynasty has spawned two presidents and two state governors. The Kennedy clan have produced one president, three senators and several members of the US Congress over two generations. The difference is, they did not rely on their fathers and got to where they were on their own steam, being elected within a system that is fair and just.
Lien Chen-tung got to where he was through his father Lien Heng’s (連橫) connections, rising through the ranks and amassing his fortune. His son was able to get a position in the governments of former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo, the former’s son and successor, and rose steadily through the ranks, before finally becoming former president Lee Teng-hui’s (李登輝) vice president. His own legacy, his own personal achievement, has continuously frustrated his efforts to be elected president. Sean Lien is even worse, relying entirely on others for money and public position.
Former US president George W. Bush did not bring in his father to campaign on his behalf when he ran for the office of president. Sean Lien, on the other hand, has roped in his parents to back him up, rolling out references to “the Chinese people” and anti-Japanese slogans that slander people who grew up in Taiwan during the period of Japanese rule.
The objective of suggesting Ko’s ancestor served the Japanese colonial government was to appeal to the older generation who still harbor ill-feelings toward their former Japanese colonial masters. However, if a person targeted by slander then turns around and says their accusers’ ancestors served the Manchu Qing Dynasty for 200 years, it is nobody’s fault but the accusers’.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS