Cross-strait policy has always been a central focus of presidential elections. New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) recently said that he “respects” the so-called “1992 consensus,” but beat around the bush when asked if he endorses it.
Hou prevaricated by saying that the public needs to reach a consensus to safeguard the peace and prosperity of the Republic of China.
Asked how he would unite the “anti-Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] camp,” Hou said that people should collaborate with each other, since the purpose of presidential elections is to work for the greater good of Taiwanese and the nation, not to bring about social division regardless of political affiliation and identity.
When it comes to sensitive or controversial issues, Hou has generally responded with bureaucratic language. Whether such remarks are filled with political shenanigans is open to interpretation, but as Hou dodges every question thrown at him, he has made the public suspicious of his character and competency.
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have been reiterating the “1992 consensus” to bolster ties with China, repeatedly reassuring Beijing of the KMT’s unchanged stance.
However, the DPP and the majority of Taiwanese know that the “1992 consensus” is a self-humiliating act that renders Taiwan a sitting duck awaiting a Chinese invasion.
It should have been clear as day what the consensus implies, but Hou continues to waver, stoking suspicion that he is not averse to being at the mercy of Beijing.
Chu claims that the KMT would unite all “anti-DPP camps” to defeat the DPP. As Chu works on exacerbating political polarization and social division to arouse anti-DPP sentiments, would not Hou’s proposal of “collaboration” go against Chu’s party line?
Would Hou dare speak out against the party elite, including Chu? It would be far wiser for him to take a clear stance if he has a better opinion to offer and refrain from pussyfooting around.
Chen Ho-wen
Taipei
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
RSS