Auric Goldfinger, James Bond's most memorable adversary, said of unfortunate events with a tendency to recur: "The first time is happenstance, the second time coincidence, the third time is enemy action." So who is the enemy responsible for this week's Cabinet near-meltdown, the third in two years? Unfortunately, if the blame is to be pinned on anybody, it is not on the much-questioned motives of those who organized Saturday's protest demonstration by farmers and fishermen. Rather it has to be laid at the door of the president himself. Chen Shui-bian (
It was shocking to hear of Chen protesting last week that he had been misled by the Cabinet as to the real nature of farmers' and fishermen's grievances and the strength of opposition to the Ministry of Finance's restructuring plan. How could the president have been misled? Maybe there is truth in KMT Chairman Lien Chan's (
It would be nice to know exactly where Chen thinks he has been misled. Was it that he was not properly informed about the finance ministry's plan? Then surely it was his job to get informed. He's the president; he just has to ask for a briefing. Was it that he was not informed about the farmers' and fishermen's feelings? The Council of Agriculture should have told him. If it couldn't, he should have demanded better intelligence. And whatever information it did provide, he should have used his own sources -- talks with legislators of party rank and file from rural communities for example -- to cross-check. It was, in fact, just such a meeting which led to his asking the Cabinet a week ago to suspend the financial reform plan. But why didn't Chen initiate something of this sort before the reforms were implemented in the fist place. It is simply unacceptable to be told that a crisis, which has the potential to wreck the Cabinet and has been two months in the making, can catch the president unawares.
The premier is apparently to stay in place. Nevertheless Minister of Finance Lee Yung-san (
We do not yet know who might take the spare Cabinet places. But a wider question has to be: why would anybody want to? First on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant issue and now on the reform of farmers' and fishermen's credit associations, the president has displayed political incompetence, followed by an ugly tendency to call on ministers to allow ignominy to be heaped upon their heads to save him from the consequences of his own lack of judgement. It is hard to imagine that a job description which revolves around a readiness to be the president's whipping boy is going to attract the sort of expertise the Cabinet really needs.
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