Despite repeated apologies at a press conference on Tuesday, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) repeatedly stressed that his leadership is strong and forceful. I believe it would be difficult to find someone who would not be angered by these remarks.
Ma offered five apologies. An apology is an expression of one’s regret for making a mistake, yet Ma repeatedly praised his own leadership throughout the press conference. Since his leadership is strong and forceful, he obviously did not have anything to apologize for. He must have been apologizing for others. But who?
First, Ma said the biggest problem with Typhoon Morakot was the unprecedented rainfall — the largest amount in 200 years.
The first party to have made a mistake, then, was obviously the gods, so Ma must have been apologizing on their behalf.
Then, Ma said many had been taught a lesson that leaving dangerous places is the best policy. This clearly reflected his earlier discontent over the failure of locals to evacuate. Ma, then, must have been apologizing for those buried alive in the mudslides who were wrong not to flee.
Third, four days after the Sept. 21, 1999, earthquake, then president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) issued an emergency decree. More than 70 percent of the public believe that Ma should also have done so to avoid disruption in the chain of command. Ma, however, said such orders cannot be issued recklessly because this would violate the democratic spirit. Democracy was thus to blame, so Ma must have been apologizing on its behalf.
Fourth, Ma said the Disaster Prevention and Protection Act (災害防救法) is comprehensive, so an emergency decree was unnecessary. The act was thus to blame for being too perfect. But Ma also pledged to establish a disaster prevention and relief agency for effective and comprehensive planning. The government now would have to amend the act, which apparently isn’t so perfect after all. That means Ma was apologizing on behalf of the act, both for being perfect and for not being perfect enough.
Fifth, Ma’s leadership is clearly outstanding, and it is difficult for his team to be equally so. He promised to investigate the activities of his team — so they were definitely making mistakes.
But who in the team should be blamed? Many said the military departed for disaster zones only two hours after the 921 Earthquake, but that they procrastinated this time. When asked by journalists whether he had exercised his powers as commander-in-chief, he said “of course” and that he inspected the disaster areas in that status. Since Ma is such a brilliant commander, the troops must surely be to blame.
He also emphasized that according to the law, disaster prevention and relief is the responsibility of local governments with support from the central government. Local governments thus had greater responsibility for mistakes than the central government. His fifth apology, then, was on behalf of local government officials.
When asked why the Ministry of Foreign Affairs rejected foreign aid, Ma’s answer was very odd. He rebuked reporters for politicizing the issue, saying that they should focus on humanitarianism. Since the ministry’s rejection obviously was not a humanitarian issue, there was nothing wrong with the disaster relief effort, and an apology for this was unnecessary.
In feudal times, emperors issued edicts blaming themselves when natural disasters occurred. Ma issued an edict of sorts at the press conference, except that this edict blamed the gods, the law, democracy, the public and government officials. With such a president — blaming everyone else while praising himself — we can sigh and shed a tear.
But we will not accept his claims of innocence.
According to an Apple Daily opinion poll, very few respondents thought victims or the military were to blame. About 13 percent said local governments should be held responsible, 15 percent said the Cabinet was to blame and 45 percent blamed the president. The results of a CNN poll showed that 82 percent of respondents felt Ma should resign. A world-class embarrassment!
Surprisingly, the results of an ICRT opinion poll found that 97 percent of respondents thought Ma should quit. This English-language radio channel’s audience is largely in Greater Taipei, and many are highly educated young people — Ma biggest supporters, who are now displeased with him.
Finally, the most severely damaged areas were Aboriginal villages in which about 70 percent to 80 percent of locals backed Ma. His popularity is experiencing an unprecedented landslide among his two strongest support groups.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS