2021年2月25日 星期四

趙少康的「宋美齡陷阱」

自由廣場》(金恒煒專欄) 2021/02/25 05:30 趙少康不智要取大位,前總統陳水扁下斷語說:起手式就錯;形同定調「一著錯滿盤輸」。趙少康從出手到現在,國民黨無意修改「一年條款」,主席江啟臣又表態將爭取連任,不只主席夢碎,總統大夢更畫餅充不了飢。 趙少康落到如此難看/難堪的地步,襲用流行語「修昔底德陷阱」,宛如落入「宋美齡陷阱」。蔣介石過世之後,宋美齡鬥不過羽翼已豐的蔣經國,迫不得已搭專機赴美,從此無力染指台灣政局。一九八八年蔣經國病逝,宋美齡計劃完成「我將再起」的大計,無奈政局丕變,新的政治生態不容她再指點江山,從此只能「故國不堪回首月明中」了。 像「龍太后」宋美齡如此顯赫的權勢,去國十三年而已,就無法「再起」,區區趙少康在歷史垃圾桶中待了二十五年之久,還妄想「我將再起」?宋美齡停留在「反攻大陸」、「漢賊不兩立」的虛幻中,趙少康則停留在他的「起手式」情結中,走不出二十五年前的情境。 趙少康面臨「天然獨」一代,卻想跟中國勾勾纏,患了歷史垃圾桶的幽閉症;完全不知民意。趙少康要台灣買中國疫苖,上週本專欄指出:「台灣人誰敢打?」答案出來了,「遠見」所做民調,台灣人敢打中國疫苖的僅一.三%。 趙少康政治大頭病的幼稚不僅止於此,他還嚷嚷著要求「民進黨主席蔡英文宣示絕不會追求台獨」!民進黨有「台獨黨綱」,公認是台獨黨,蔡英文即使不敢、不願獨,也不可能冒此大不韙;這是其一。何況民進黨一旦放棄台獨主張,不是就變成中國國民黨的二.一版?利基全都掏空,造就國民黨鹹魚翻生;民進黨哪可能笨到像趙少康一樣?這是其二。獨不獨?是民意決定,連中國都知道擋不住了,趙少康空口白話就能壓制蔡英文、壓斷台獨?這是其三。香港被中國生吞活剝,「親中」死路一條,教訓就在眼前,還不夠嗎?獨統之爭,在思想、制度上是民主與專制之爭;台灣若沒有民主化,會有「獨」嗎?這是其四。 趙少康最新的議題是拋出內閣制,他不滿「總統一人獨大,沒有制衡」,然後自我衍義說:「總統好爽啊,勢力那麼大,不想下來,所以才會有兩顆子彈事件發生……。」真是什麼跟什麼呀。尤其說「蔡英文總統任期還有大約三年,不可能再連任,何不在此時推動內閣制?」他表示若蔡英文不做,他第一年當選就推動內閣制,如果修法成功,到時候選立委,爭取當總理。像不像《伊索寓言》中那位「賣牛奶的女孩」在一連串慾望幻想的空中建樓閣? 台灣並非總統制而是超級總統制。為什麼李登輝九七年修憲要修掉立法院對閣揆的同意權?李認為連戰會選上總統,但民進黨立委會多數;這個判斷對一半。如果蔡英文果真修成內閣制,民進黨保證可以永遠執政,蔡英文三年後繼續當權,任期可以比英國柴契爾的十一年或德國梅克爾的十五年還長。 「趙少康陷阱」比「宋美齡陷阱」慘。

2021年2月18日 星期四

滿腦中國 滿腦鬼

自由廣場》(金恒煒專欄) 2021/02/18 05:30 說人「滿腦子鬼」,基本上是負面用語,也有時是正面,如形容蒲松齡,但有時是事實陳述;相對的,說「滿腦子中國」,可以是事實,可以是負評,但也有可能是讚詞,比如馬英九、趙少康、韓國瑜、蘇起等,甚至到賴士葆之流,都擎著「中國」旗幟高聲吶喊;厲害的是,不怕自我現形。 別的、遠的不談,僅就肺炎肆虐的這一年,馬英九們肆無忌憚的要讓台灣「武漢肺炎化」。先從最近的新聞說起,帳再往前算。 最新一波的是馬英九、趙少康呼求「別拒絕中國疫苖」,賴士葆一搭一唱接口說:台灣防疫的「更高指導原則」是「政治正確,否則免談」。果真? 先解決幾個問題。BBC探討中國COVID-19疫苗到底管不管用?開篇即點出重點:「第一個被發現肺炎的國家,可否在全球接種疫苖上發揮巨大作用?」明確定調中國是「第一個被發現肺炎的國家」,所以台灣用「武漢肺炎」正確無誤;正像流亡海外的中國藝術家艾未未所說:「新冠病毒是『中國製造』裡最響亮的牌子」;那麼馬友友們用「歧視」字眼來抨擊台灣用武漢肺炎,正顯示「滿腦子中國」而已。 其次,BBC指出,中國疫苖的科興與國藥兩家公司之可信度很低、疫苗有效性非常可疑。但為什麼還有國家要?答案是:人命關天。《紐約時報》援引英國民調公司YouGov「對各國疫苖的正負面看法」報告,顯示俄國、中國與印度排在末尾,但「面臨疫苖嚴重不足並運送不及」,法國、西班牙和德國不得不思考摒除對中國和俄國疫苖的「偏見」,《紐約時報》認為是到了信任中國與俄羅斯疫苖的時候了,否則更糟。 此外,BBC還指出,中國傾全力輸出疫苖甚至免費,目的在於展現「軟實力」,可見中國疫苖是政治武器。此一論點正好是賴士葆「政治正確」的最有力反證。 台灣為何不考慮中國疫苗?除了沒有「情勢危殆」的急迫性,沒有病急亂投藥的必要性,更免於陷入BBC預警的中國疫苖可能失敗的危機。流行疫情指揮中心指揮官陳時中引學理指出,中國疫苖連第一步「候選疫苖」的資格都沒有,加上技術不完整、科學性資料沒有發表過;與BBC及《紐時》的論點沒有二致。更何況台灣人平常日用的食材、用品等,往往不敢碰中國製,何況疫苗?真要引進中國疫苖,老實說台灣人誰敢打?連勝文、馬英九、趙少康等人這樣喜歡中國疫苖,那就自己打呀!「中國有沒有就疫苖與我方接觸?」陳時中回應記者說:「可能馬英九有」,那麼馬友友們就打呀! 萬幸之一是,國民黨倒了,台灣人用選票否決「人進來、貨出去」;萬幸之二是,中共阻絕所謂「陸客」來台,否則美國約翰霍普金斯大學預言「台灣是中國以外疫情最慘的國家」必定成真。 台灣在口罩生產每月二四四萬片時,馬英九即要求送口罩給中國,口不擇言說:「台灣不捐口罩沒人性」,現在又說:「不買中國疫苗無理性」。「滿腦子中國」作祟,只讓台灣人越來越看不起。 (作者金恒煒為政治評論者;http://wenichin.blogspot.tw/) 遠見調查:僅6成民眾願接種新冠疫苗 最不信任大陸貨 2021-02-23 11:48 聯合報 / 記者葉冠妤/台北即時報導 「遠見」與「遠見民意研究調查」自2月4日至7日針對18歲以上台灣民眾進行「新冠疫苗接種意願調查」,回收1145份有效問卷,結果顯示,台灣民眾接種意願約6成,低於國際水準。進一步詢問對疫苗的信心,有3成民眾質疑其感染預防力、安全性;此外,民眾最挺台灣製造,54.8%民眾希望接種台灣自製疫苗,31.8%為歐美疫苗,選擇中國大陸疫苗則僅1.3%。 

2021年2月4日 星期四

韓趙聯手的軟性政變

自由廣場》(金恒煒專欄)韓趙聯手的軟性政變 2021/02/04 05:30 國民黨可憐到爆,窩囊到不行。區區一個黨外人士而已,一宣稱「回復黨籍」,黨頓然吱吱咯咯的上動下搖。這位人士連黨門還未進,隔空挑明佔主席寶座、選總統,更叫人咋舌的是,此人,乖乖,語帶威脅的要黨主席立刻奉上中評委聘書,以取得選主席資格。氣燄之盛、口氣之大,眼中哪有黨?虧國民黨嚥得下這口氣。 這個「區區」,不是別人,是號稱「政治金童」的趙少康。政治金童?卻像伏爾泰嘲諷的「神聖羅馬帝國」一樣名不副實;「政治」?趙少康口口聲聲說自己是「媒體人」;「童」?年過耳順了,童什麼童!「金」才是趙少康本色。 趙少康是精刮利害的生意人,區區兩億元換來「不當黨產」價高十億的中廣;這筆橫財暴利,靠的是政媒雙棲、「入乎其內、出乎其外」的手法。現在公開叫陣,兵臨於江啟臣城下,要主席就主席、要選總統就選總統,毫不掩飾的說,等到安全上莊後,中廣董事長寶座才放手;任何成本、損失、風險概由國民黨承擔,趙少康一張嘴天地玄黃。 當然,趙少康挾韓國瑜部勒藍營,不只「趙韓同盟」,而是「李代桃僵」的政治版本;韓國瑜被九十三萬票罷免,形同政治死刑,需要找一個代理人,趙少康是最壞打算下的最好選擇:趙不只一路力挺,且是同路人。更重要的是,韓國瑜打包票:「中評委的事情我會去跟江啟臣討論」;忒大的口氣。韓國瑜擺得平擺不平江啟臣是一回事,其他有意問鼎的諸侯服不服固有待觀察。韓趙聯手發動軟性政變,目的是使國民黨新黨化;背後那把沒有亮出的傢伙就是韓粉。 趙少康能不能及如何豪奪巧取國民黨,是國民黨自家的事,反正好戲開鑼。但趙少康指鹿為馬、瞞天過海,那是顛倒黑白的詐術。趙少康宣布班師回朝時呼籲「台灣別搞省籍分化」,有沒有搞錯,一九九四年台北市長選舉,趙少康最旗幟鮮明的口號是「呼群保義」,「號召眷村榮民傾家蕩產支持他」。(楊實秋語)算準了天龍國族群結構的特色,趙少康孤注一擲的把外省人全押下去梭哈。所謂物極必反,趙少康的族群動員,激起了台灣人集體焦慮的反制,最後在三腳督下,反使陳水扁脫穎而出。搞省籍分化的始作俑者不是趙少康是誰! 「呼群保義」不僅是趙少康選戰策略而已,是他堅如磐石的大中國沙文意識形態的外爍。國會全面改選時他說:「外省人比台灣人多,外省人有十幾億,三十幾省的外省人;台灣人才一千多萬,我們多數,你們少數。」「中華民國不只有台灣嘛!所以你們要聽我們的,我們多數你們少數。」把台灣打成「我們族群」與「你們族群」,當成恆定的統治與被統治關係,「你們要聽我們的」、「你們台灣人要聽我們外省人的」,這才是趙少康的終極信念。 中國共產黨建黨百週年不是玩假的:中央人民廣播電台訪問白狼不是訪假的;趙少康搶黨主席也不是搶假的。 (作者金恒煒為政治評論者;http://wenichin.blogspot.tw/)

Judicial corruption demands action

Home Editorials Thu, Feb 04, 2021 page8 Judicial corruption demands action By Chin Heng-wei 金恒煒 Were it not for the Control Yuan, the massive judicial scandal involving allegations of corruption by former Supreme Court judge Shih Mu-chin (石木欽) and Chia Her Industrial president Weng Mao-chung (翁茂鍾) would have remained buried deep in multiple “black boxes.” However, there is another important aspect to the story that is worthy of attention. If Control Yuan members appointed by former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) are not cleared out, even if the agency initiates impeachment proceedings against the more than 200 judicial personnel and civil servants accused of having been involved in illicit activities, nothing will happen. After the Judicial Yuan handed material related to Shih’s activities to the Control Yuan, an impeachment procedure against Shih was opened. At the Control Yuan’s impeachment review committee’s first hearing, members voted seven to four against impeaching Shih. The second hearing lacked a quorum, and after the third hearing failed to impeach him, the issue was left unresolved. Control Yuan member Fang Wan-fu (方萬富), a Ma appointee implicated in the case, mobilized Ma supporters in the Control Yuan to block Shih’s impeachment. Fortunately, the Ma clique in the Control Yuan was broken up when a new class of members joined, and on Aug. 14 last year, the committee voted in favor of Shih’s impeachment by 12 votes to none. Talking to reporters, Shih fired back, asking: “If I was involved in any impropriety, why was I not impeached during the first impeachment hearing?” He clearly understands the agency’s inner workings. On Sept. 9 last year, the Control Yuan issued a report stating that prosecutors had more than 130 files, but that it had only seen a dozen or so. The report said that the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office had confiscated 27 of Weng’s notebooks, but only the parts involving judges had been handed over: Everything involving prosecutors had been kept under wraps. As a result, the Control Yuan demanded that the Executive Yuan and Judicial Yuan punish implicated officials within two months, or the Control Yuan would take action itself. This bold move forced the Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice to announce the results of its investigation on Jan. 18. The investigation found that Weng had had “improper contact” with 20 judges, 11 prosecutors, and nine Investigation Bureau officials. Can it really be that only 40 individuals were involved? Even Saber Youth — a judicial independence advocacy group composed of young prosecutors — called on the Judicial Yuan to make public a list of all officials implicated in the case. The Weng-Shih case involves alleged improper conduct which, according to the Control Yuan, occurred more than a decade — and in some instances more than two decades — ago. However, Fang was a Control Yuan member up until July 30 last year, so his case is still easy to investigate. The scandal concerns the entire judicial system and implicates powerful people at the highest level, from grand justices down to judges in the Supreme Court, High Administrative Court, Disciplinary Court, and administrative and district courts. The allegations implicate retired grand justices, a former Judicial Yuan vice president and division chief judges. Prosecutors from chief prosecutors down are also involved. Judicial Reform Foundation chairman Lin Yung-sung (林永頌) asked Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌): “Why are there no investigation reports from the National Police Agency, which falls under your purview?” There are no reports from the police agency or the Investigation Bureau, and the judiciary and prosecutors are clearly in cahoots with each other; if it is not corruption, the only explanation is gross incompetence. President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) rejected the introduction of a jury system in favor of a lay judge system that would include so-called “citizen judges” in lieu of genuine judicial reform. Shih’s actions show that the “citizen judge” system is unworkable. Former Judicial Yuan president Rai Hau-min (賴浩敏) received a letter informing on Shih when he was newly installed as Taiwan High Court president. Shih was summoned by Rai for formal questioning. Shih strongly denied any illegal activity, saying that he had never provided advice to Weng, and persuaded Rai. If even an experienced lawyer such as Rai was duped by Shih, one can assume that a citizen judge could also be duped. The judiciary has for many years functioned as a closed interest group, with the Control Yuan as gatekeeper. How many more Weng cases are out there? How many more Shihs and Fangs are operating within the system? How many more crooked grand justices are yet to be exposed? Weng was not a particularly skilled operator — the problem lies with Taiwan’s rotten judicial system. “Independent trial” and “discretionary evidence” are used as shields by bad actors and impede the Control Yuan from properly supervising and investigating members of the judiciary. Tsai’s judicial reform, announced with so much fanfare five years ago, is left in tatters. Can she continue to stay out of the matter for much longer? Chin Heng-wei is a political commentator. Translated by Edward Jones

2021年1月28日 星期四

人民選出的人民收回

自由廣場》(金恒煒專欄)人民選出的人民收回 2021/01/28 05:30 先問個有趣的問題,同樣面臨被罷免境況;一個是民進黨的王浩宇;一個是無黨籍的黃捷,為什麼民進黨挺黃捷的力道反而遠甚於挺王浩宇?罷免王浩宇的門檻八萬多票,不只民進黨評估難難難,連藍營也沒有什麼把握。從過去罷免案的紀錄來看,除了罷免高雄市長韓國瑜成功外,幾乎是不可能的任務;即使修法降低門檻,時代力量的黃國昌依然因同意票未達標而過關。民進黨冷對王浩宇案,憑仗的就是此一天險之不能逾越。 王浩宇被罷,除選區藍大於綠外,王本人「顧人怨」也是重要因素。王浩宇罷免成功,無異是幫黃捷大忙,民進黨不敢忽視骨牌作用,蔡英文兩度下令全黨動起來,「不能坐著不管」;罷黃勢必比罷王難多多。 韓國瑜的罷免達陣,成為台灣選舉史上的轉折點,罷免不再是天方夜譚。受到韓國瑜被罷的刺激,國民黨及藍營燃起復仇之火,使出「報復性罷免」戰術,烽火遍地;攻下王浩宇,只是大虧之後的小贏,對一蹶不振的士氣倒有提升之功,最新民調顯示,國民黨支持度回升五.五個百分點。國民黨意圖藉由一次次的罷免戰操兵。 選舉要提「政見」,罷免基本上不需要理由,儘管「選罷法」明文規定「檢附罷免理由書」,但沒有審核機構,也不能/敢審核,形同具文而已。誠如美國加州一九一一年首次推動並通過罷免法的當時州長Hiram Johnson所說:不需要違法事實也可罷免,罷免是「預防性措施」,讓「不恤民意的官員下台」。 美國是聯邦制,罷免法由州議會制定,目前十九個州有罷免法。第一位被罷免下台的州長是一九二一年北達科州的Lynn Frazier,第二位是二○○三年的加州州長Gray Davis,補選繼任者就是大名鼎鼎的知名影星阿諾.史瓦辛格。以加州為例,Davis之前,有過一一七次的罷免,統統以失敗告終,可見罷免之難。州長、副州長、檢察長、參議員、全體或個別法官⋯⋯,都可以罷免,正如《聖經》〈約伯記〉所說:「上帝賞賜的上帝收回」,人民選出的人民罷免,如此而已。 我們憲法上明文規定,罷免權屬於人民基本權利之一,但從來沒有落實過。二○一六年十一月通過選罷法修正案,門檻終於下降到可以罷免的程度。罷免制度最重要的意義是,民選官員從總統到立委、議員以下都可以罷免;任期制不是必然、唯一的保證。罷免不必問理由,政黨當然可以參與,不介入才是假仙。至於「報復性罷免」法所不禁,不必掩飾;罷免勢必進入台灣政治程序。林濁水說:「罷免行政首長,邏輯還說得通,但罷免議員,違反言論免責的自由主義。」美國罷免州長、議員、官員等,史不絕書,所有罷免名單全在案,從沒人拿「言論自由」來扣帽子。民主制度固有想像的理想面,但本質上不脫赤裸裸的權力鬥爭;馬基雅維利主義在民主體制中也虎虎生風。 (作者金恒煒為政治評論者;http://wenichin.blogspot.tw/)

2021年1月21日 星期四

自由廣場》(金恒煒專欄)司法膿瘡爆裂了

自由廣場》(金恒煒專欄)司法膿瘡爆裂了 2021/01/21 05:30 如果沒有監察院,這宗司法大醜聞勢必掩藏在層層套套黑盒子中,永不見光;更要補上另一個關鍵性的重大環節,如果馬系監委沒有清除一空,即使監察院彈劾,也成不了事。 第五屆監察院接到司法院移送的有關高等法院前院長石木欽的黑材料,立案彈劾,審查會第一次七票對四票,「表決不通過」,第二次人數不足,流會三次後不了了之。馬英九提名的監委方萬富自己涉入此案,拉馬系監委築成鐵壁,杯葛成功!天可憐見,監委換屆,馬系勢力瓦解,去年八月十四日才能以十二比零彈劾成功。石木欽接受記者訪問,竟振振有詞的反嗆:「若涉違失,為何第一次彈劾沒過?」可見對監察院運作了然於胸。 九月九日監察院提出調查報告,表示檢調掌握一三○多個檔案,監察院只看到與石木欽有關的十餘份而已;北檢扣押賄賂人翁茂鍾廿七本筆記,只將有關司法官部分上交,檢察官涉案的全部秘而不告。監察院遂藉由記者會公開要求行政院、司法院在兩個月內「依法懲處」涉案的司法人員,否則「監察院自己來」。 監察院的大動作,迫使司法院、法務部在今年一月十八日公布調查結果,認定與翁茂鍾有「不當接觸」者計法官廿名、檢察體系的十一名、調查局九名。到底是不是只有四十人涉案?連「劍青檢改」都質疑,要求公布所有貪官名字! 翁茂鍾案起於上世紀末,司法院表示,多屬十餘年前甚至廿餘年前的不當行為。但是,方萬富做監委做到去年七月卅一日,所以案子還是熱騰騰的新鮮貨。 這宗醜聞案牽動了司法每一個部門,涉案的幾乎是權大位尊的頂尖人物,大法官、最高法院、高等行政法院、懲戒法院、行政法院、各地地院不等,有優退大法官、司法院副院長、各級庭長,還有數不清的法官們;檢察官則從檢察長、司長到各地檢察官,真是洋洋大觀,甚至連調查官也不缺席。司改會律師林永頌質問行政院長蘇貞昌說:「為什麼你轄下的警政署沒有任何調查報告?」警政署沒有報告,調查局也沒有;司法機構沆瀣一氣,不是腐爛就是擺爛。 蔡英文推翻陪審制,硬推出參審制,起用所謂「國民法官」當司改的替死鬼;石木欽則用行為替國民法官制做了否證。當時司法院長賴浩敏接到檢舉黑函,召見剛出任高院院長的石木欽對質,石向賴打包票,表示絕無不法情事,也沒有指點翁茂鍾云云,賴院長就被說服了。重點是,如果連律師出身的賴浩敏都被唬弄過去,「國民法官」在法庭中不被唬弄才怪。 台灣司法機器早成利益集團的禁臠了,連監察院都儼然衛兵角色。現在要問的是,還有多少翁茂鍾?還有多少石木欽?還有多少方萬富?還有多少蔡清遊?並非翁茂鍾有多厲害,是司法老結構爛到骨子裡去了,還拿「獨立審判」、「自由心證」當堅甲,不容監察院置喙。 蔡總統五年前大言不慚的司改,成績血淋淋,蔡英文可以坐在總統府置身事外嗎?!

2021年1月18日 星期一

Pompeo secures close Taiwan ties

Mon, Jan 18, 2021 page6 Pompeo secures close Taiwan ties By Chin Heng-wei 金恒煒 Like a thunderbolt out of the blue, with only 11 days remaining of US President Donald Trump’s term, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Saturday last week announced that the US Department of State had, effective immediately, lifted all “self-imposed” restrictions on how US diplomats and other government officials engage with their Taiwanese counterparts. Pompeo’s announcement immediately triggered a backlash. Criticisms leveled by former US National Security Council director for China, Taiwan and Mongolia affairs Evan Medeiros, who served in the administration of former US president Barack Obama, were representative of the disapproving reaction. “The administration is over in two weeks… It looks like a publicity stunt,” Medeiros said. Former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd also weighed in, saying: “If Pompeo was serious about this, why not do this one or two years ago?” Others opined that the move was a departing shot by Trump, designed to shake up US-China relations and set a trap for the incoming administration of US president-elect Joe Biden. In fact, the seeds of Trump’s departing shot were sown by his protocol-breaking phone call with President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) in late 2016. Since then, the Trump administration has used a combination of legislation and other actions to close in on its dramatic endgame step-by-step. US Senator Tom Cotton, US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel and US Representative Michael McCaul began to prepare the ground in March and April last year, proposing the Taiwan Assurance Act of 2020 in the House of Representatives and US Senate, which requires the state department to review its “contact guidelines” for Taiwan. On Dec. 22 last year, the US Congress passed an appropriations bill for the next fiscal year that included the act. The act requires Pompeo’s department to review the guidelines within 180 days of being signed into law and to propose new guidelines. Far from being a “confused internal document,” as has been claimed by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Deputy Secretary-General Huang Kwei-bo (黃奎博), the new guidelines are the result of proper congressional procedure. In many respects, Pompeo has been running ahead of the law. Last year, the US’ Coordination Council for North American Affairs in Taipei was renamed the Taiwan Council for US Affairs, then-Taiwan National Security Council secretary-general David Lee (李大維) met with former US national security adviser John Bolton, and in August, US Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar visited Taiwan and met with President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). The state department waited to officially announce the voiding of its four-decades-old contact guidelines after the act was passed by Congress on Jan. 9. Just a few days later, on Monday last week, Representative to the US Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴) met with US Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Clarke Cooper, and on Thursday, US Ambassador to the UN Kelly Craft held a virtual meeting with Tsai. The trend of events is clear: The US-China relationship cannot go back to what it was. The New York Times quoted a Trump administration official as saying that the legacy of the Trump administration will perhaps be his tough stance on China and the establishment of closer ties with Taiwan. The official added that the Trump administration is thinking up ways in which it can prevent Biden from backsliding on its policies. The New York Times also quoted Antony Blinken, Biden’s pick to head the state department, as saying that he might block contact with high-level Taiwanese officials. However, the article’s main point came toward the end, where it concluded that there is increasing cross-party support for closer ties with Taipei. Those who are expecting the Biden administration to overturn Trump’s China policy are promoting hope over facts. For example, the Chinese-language newspaper United Daily News, which is close to the pan-blue camp, on Jan. 10 ran an article titled: “Be careful of beautiful presents concealing political intent.” If there is any malicious intent, it appears to be coming from that camp. KMT Legislator Alex Fai (費鴻泰) described Craft, after her visit to Taiwan had been canceled, as an “unwanted guest.” The language used is shameful and betrays a certain vulgarity in its speaker. The most stupefying intervention came from KMT Chairman Johnny Chiang (江啟臣), who warned the Tsai administration not to allow Taiwan to become a “bargaining chip” or a “pawn” in the tussle between the US and China. This kind of language is no different from that of China’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) spokesman Ma Xiaoguang (馬曉光) and spokeswoman Zhu Fenglian (朱鳳蓮), who have depicted Taiwan as the US’ “chess piece.” The Chinese Communist Party and the KMT really are singing from the same hymn sheet. Chin Heng-wei is a political commentator.