It is rare that this newspaper has any time for Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
Of course Ma has since learned the expediency of blame-dodging -- the man that can congratulate himself on his stellar performance in the wake of Typhoon Nari has obviously forgotten what "unconscionable" means. But with him as the exception, it is hard to remember any other case of someone resigning on a matter of principle.
Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) meeting with James Soong (宋楚瑜) and the 10-point consensus that issued from it was not an administrative stumble, rather it was the most "unconscionable" betrayal of principle since Koo Hsien-jung (辜顯榮) surrendered Taipei to the Japanese. The fact that Chen, by all accounts, still fails to understand what he did wrong in sawing up his reelection campaign platform and burning it as an offering to Soong's vanity, reminds us of his dubious suitability as leader of the pan-greens in the first place. He was always too much of a trimmer, just a little too spineless, for the taste of many greens. He was, unfortunately, the most electable candidate they had, which is what has brought us to the current impasse.
Such reflections lead us to two questions: first, given the sheer outrageousness of Chen's action, why has nobody jumped ship? True, four presidential advisers quit in disgust, though the most vociferous of them withdrew his resignation when asked to, but four, or rather three, out of over 100 is hardly a mass walk-out. And no Cabinet minister or DPP heavyweight quit. Indeed some of the loudest deep-green tub-thumpers have been groveling apologists: foreign minister Mark Chen (
For members of the Cabinet -- at least those who are actually greens -- anyone of any principle should have tendered their resignation the evening of the meeting when the 10 points became known. Chen was not -- is not -- worth supporting; in fact it is hard to see how any person of principle could even shake his hand.
For the DPP, the only response was to repudiate the agreement immediately and in full. If the party leadership had refused to do this the legislative caucus could have tried to redeem some honor by doing so themselves.
We have, however, seen none of this, to which all we can say is that those who have not walked are guilty of betrayal by not dissociating themselves from Chen's coat-turning.
And this brings us to our second question. 2008 will see the back of Chen; who will replace him? It is not too early to think about this. In fact, by their reactions to the Chen-Soong deal should contenders be judged. Supine approval? No thanks. Coruscating condemnation? That's our candidate. But at the moment where, or who is this paragon of the virtues that the invertebrate Chen so conspicuously lacks?
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS