I wonder if you can remember an incident back in January 2010, when the head of a TV channel happened to mention on his personal blog that his mother had lost faith in President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
When Ma caught wind of this, he acted as if it were a matter of national importance and wasted no time in heading straight to the Hualien residence of the lady in question. There he chatted with her, listened to what constructive criticism she had to offer, had a photograph taken with her and gave her his autograph.
Fast forward to today, with the ongoing Sunflower movement and the recently concluded occupation of the legislative chamber by student activists.
Right from the very beginning, the students had asked Ma to appear in person at the Legislative Yuan to respond to what they had to say and listen to their constructive criticism.
When he failed to show up, they called on the president, on several occasions, to engage with them in direct dialogue. Ma, choosing instead to keep his distance — separated from the students by riot barriers and rows of police — refused to step inside the legislature and communicate with the protesters.
His excuse was that “according to the Constitution, [he] was not allowed to enter the Legislative Yuan unless invited to give the legislature his state of the union address.”
Naturally, he has a point. There is a legal rationale behind saying that the nation’s presidents cannot just arrive at or visit the legislature when they feel like it.
However, there was nothing stopping Ma from making a trip to the building and engaging with the hundreds of students encamped outside, asking them what it was they were so aggrieved about and listening to what they had to say. How would he have responded if asked why he felt he could not make this concession? What excuse would he give for declining to do so?
The questions do not stop there. How about this one: On March 30, approximately 500,000 people took to the streets of Taipei — including students, their mothers and families, their university professors and other public figures — expressing their objections to the non-transparent way in which the government has been running the nation and to the proposed cross-strait service trade agreement, and demanding the creation of new legislation governing oversight of cross-strait agreements before the review of the agreement continues. If this is not constructive criticism, then what is? Did we see the president emerge from the Presidential Office, or from his official residence, to face the public and listen to what they had to say?
What Ma seems to have failed to appreciate is that, as the chairman of a political party, it is perfectly legitimate to take note of what an individual person thinks of you, even when you choose to disregard the problems huge swathes of the general public have with your performance in office. This is just keeping the party political house in order.
However, as president of the nation, it is surely more incumbent upon you to listen to what half a million people have to say than it is to listen to the criticisms of a single person. Unless, perhaps, you would contend that the one is more important than the many, at a ratio of 1:500,000. Such a contention may make sense in an autocracy. It has no place in a democracy.
Chang Kuo-tsai is a former associate professor at National Hsinchu University of Education and a former deputy secretary-general of the Taiwan Association of University Professors.
Translated by Paul Cooper
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS