With the furor surrounding the death on July 4 of army corporal Hung Chung-chiu (洪仲丘) threatening to spiral out of control, it was only a matter of time before Minister of National Defense Kao Hua-chu (高華柱) stepped down to take responsibility for Hung’s death and the subsequent cover-up.
Although Hung’s family was right when they said on Monday that Kao’s replacement did not change a thing with regard to the case — as the 66-year-old was not directly responsible for the 24-year-old’s death — drastic action had to be taken and it was, for two main reasons:
For purely political reasons, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration needed to do something symbolic to show that it is being proactive about the case. When controversies snowball, it is not unusual for heads at the very top to roll.
However, it is evident from the public’s reaction and that of the Hungs that the move was insufficient. The family, and the many others who over the years have been unable to obtain the truth about the mysterious deaths of young servicemen, want the cases to be solved. They want answers.
By appointing Deputy Minister of National Defence Andrew Yang (楊念祖), who was Kao’s deputy on policy issues since September 2009, the administration may have taken a step in the right direction. By elevating him to the top position, the well-respected, academically inclined 58-year-old has become the first civilian to head the ministry under the Ma administration.
Pan-green media immediately criticized the move, saying that Yang not coming from a military background would make him an inefficient defense minister. However, the inclusion of an outsider and the possibility of making a clear break with the past might be just what the military — beset with serious problems over the Hung controversy and the struggling all-volunteer program — needs.
That is not to say that Yang, who spent much of his academic career studying the US-Taiwan-China triangular relationship, will not face internal opposition from the armed forces, which traditionally are resistant to change and external meddling. Reforming the military and addressing the corruption eating away at them from the inside while it attempts to shift from a compulsory to a volunteer-based force will be an extraordinarily complex challenge.
However, to say that Yang cannot achieve this goal simply because he comes from a civilian background is invidious and fails to take history into account, since many defense chiefs before him — including at the world’s largest defense institution, the Pentagon — also came from a non-military backgrounds and have performed their jobs well.
An additional benefit to Yang heading the ministry is the unusually good relations he has with the US military, the defense industry and academia, which certainly will pay dividends when it comes to facilitating exchanges with Taiwan’s principal security guarantor. His ability to interact directly with foreign officials in English and his keener understanding of the need to entertain good relations with Western media — a marked deficiency among leaders of the armed forces — will also be important assets at a time of heightened sensitivity to a possible defensive abandonment by Washington.
Taiwan military observers often argued that despite his position as vice minister, Yang had little influence within the ministry. His elevation to the top job will be an occasion for him to show what he is made of. Given the high stakes and the critical phase the military is currently in, it is essential that Yang be given the support and latitude he needs to prevent the armed forces — Taiwan’s last line of defense against Chinese encroachment — from collapsing.
Yang’s appointment was not purely political; it was the right move at the right time.
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