Having made controversial remarks about the government’s record on the nation’s birthrate — accusing President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), unmarried and childless, of being incapable of understanding how new mothers feel — former premier Simon Chang (張善政), the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) vice presidential candidate, wants people to focus on the issues and stop being nasty to him.
His initial remarks — which he has said were taken out of context, unleashing online criticism that he claimed amounted to “bullying” — were that as Tsai has not given birth, “she would not understand the feelings of a parent.”
The remarks were met with accusations of misogyny — which certainly should be addressed — but there are other aspects germane to the discussion: the wearisome mendacity of politics, the hypocrisy inherent in Chang’s attempts to walk back his comments and his failure to understand why so many people found them troubling.
A chart Chang provided to illustrate the Tsai administration’s “failing” policies on reversing the falling birthrate — an issue faced by governments the world over — was full of errors, which were helpfully pointed out by online commentators.
First, he placed the beginning of Tsai’s tenure in the final year of former president Ma Ying-yeou’s (馬英九) second term. Second, he ignored that government policies — from formulation through development to implementation and effect, including the time delay in planning to start a family or having another child — can take years before they are reflected in national statistics. Third, he tied this “failure” to Tsai’s gender and unmarried, childless status.
Chang noted the first two errors in a subsequent Facebook post, saying how important it was to rectify mistakes for such important issues, and tried to account for the controversy by saying that his comments were misunderstood.
If he wants voters to trust him in government, should he be making such rudimentary errors in presenting statistics? Surely they were not intentionally used to distort the situation. Would he do that on such an important issue? Perhaps the errors were the fault of his team, and not his alone.
It is arguable that — misogynistic suggestions aside — Tsai is not individually and solely responsible for her administration’s policy in addressing the birthrate “crisis.” Perhaps the president consults teams of experts and government departments when formulating major national policies.
Maybe the policy is not entirely the fault of her “failure” to perceive the fears and concerns of young couples newly arrived in a foreign nation with no financial support or an established social network.
Perhaps Chang has found himself in every conceivable context, qualifying him to direct government policy on all possible matters that might present themselves to a new government.
Please note the sarcasm.
Instead of acknowledging the perceived, implied misogyny of his initial comments, Chang called for people to focus on what he described as his core point: Pregnant new immigrants unable to apply for health insurance in their first six months in Taiwan might have government subsidies for maternity checks, but that this would not help them if those health checks discovered something amiss.
It is a fair point and worth looking into within the context of the government’s policy on supporting immigrant families.
However, Chang went on to politicize the matter by suggesting that the government had unleashed an “Internet army” bent on subverting the discourse, an obvious reference to the Yang Hui-ju (楊蕙如) affair.
Does he not see that criticizing a politician on the basis of her gender and marital status is bullying? If not, that is the problem right there.
US president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
Chinese Ministry of National Defense spokesman Wu Qian (吳謙) announced at a news conference that General Miao Hua (苗華) — director of the Political Work Department of the Central Military Commission — has been suspended from his duties pending an investigation of serious disciplinary breaches. Miao’s role within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) affects not only its loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but also ideological control. This reflects the PLA’s complex internal power struggles, as well as its long-existing structural problems. Since its establishment, the PLA has emphasized that “the party commands the gun,” and that the military is
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in