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
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