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
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS