The incoming administration announced its choice for secretary-general of the National Security Council this week: former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislator Su Chi (蘇起). Although the appointment did not come as a surprise, it was no less disappointing.
After accepting the position, Su told a press conference that he would serve the administration as a key source of unbiased facts and counsel for major policy decisions. He also said he would lead the council to act "decently and professionally." But there is reason to doubt that Su, with his penchant for distorting the truth, will live up to his promises.
When president-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and premier-designate Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) began announcing their Cabinet lineup, critics voiced concern that too many old faces would be returning to power. In response, the Ma camp argued that its choices would bring experienced and capable figures to the fore who were necessary to expedite Ma's electoral platform. Indeed, Ma hopes to see through significant change concerning cross-strait exchanges within two months of taking office.
There is no denying that Su has a lot of experience. In addition to his time as a legislator, he has held a number of Cabinet positions. He has directed the Government Information Office, chaired the Mainland Affairs Council and the Research, Development and Evaluation Commission and served as deputy secretary-general of the Presidential Office. But it is questionable whether Su's track record as a public servant could be considered an asset in a democratic government.
Far from respecting the responsibilities entrusted to him over the years, Su has made a series of questionable accusations that have not lent him an aura of professional integrity.
Last October he claimed that President Chen Shui-bian (陳水æ‰) had secretly instructed the Chungshan Institute of Science and Technology to build a nuclear bomb and attempted to get assistance from nuclear experts abroad. When pressed for evidence, however, he later conceded he had none and that he made the claims based on "inference." Other unsubstantiated assertions by Su include a statement that Chen would flee to the US and seek asylum to avoid prosecution on corruption charges.
In 2000, just before the KMT handed over the reins to the Democratic Progressive Party, Su invented the term "1992 consensus," claiming that an agreement had been reached with Beijing eight years earlier in Hong Kong. In 2006, Su was forced to admit that not only had he cooked up the concept, but also that he did not inform then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) that he had invented the term until later, despite being a key member of Lee's administration.
In this context, it is amusing that Ma and Liu would consider Su a trustworthy adviser.
A key pillar of Ma's election platform was a promise to rid the government of corruption and to promote honesty and transparency. That Ma would recruit Su despite his tricky pedigree reflects poorly on the incoming Cabinet.
The "strengths" Su will likely bring to Ma's administration -- making unsubstantiated claims with the goal of manipulating public opinion -- are hardly suited to developing the nation's democracy, nor are they the kind of skill Ma should be rewarding.
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS