Nobody has yet suggested that the shooting of President Chen Shui-bian (
Dr. Henry Lee managed to queer the pitch nicely last week when he told a local cable TV station that, while he doubted theories according to which Chen had staged his own shooting, he also did not believe the shooting was really an assassination attempt, "because an assassin would have aimed at the chest, heart or used a more powerful gun."
In an interview with the Taipei Times published today Lee makes a similar claim: "In my experience, if it was a political assassination, a high-powered rifle would been used. Even if the assassin opted for a handgun, it would be a high-powered one. If the aim was to kill, why not take it to the extreme?"
It all depends, we suppose, on what is meant by "assassin." If it is a professional hit man, the Edward Fox character in Day of the Jackal for example, then this sort of killer would have used neither the weapon, the ammunition nor the location that was actually used. He would be on a rooftop somewhere with a sniper rifle. On the other hand, if we are talking about a lone nut case, Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver say, such a person has to use what he can get, when he has an opportunity to use it. The fact that he is not a professional killer does not make him any the less a would-be assassin.
Lee might be trying to tell us only that the shooter was not a professional marksman. But his words have been taken in this country to mean that he thinks that the shooter was not trying to kill Chen. If he was trying to kill him, he would have done it
differently.
Balderdash! The overwhelming likelihood is that he simply couldn't attempt the shooting any other way. The shooter couldn't use a more high powered gun because he couldn't get one. And as for aiming at the head, it is pointed out to US Marines in basic training that only one person in 10 can hit a moving target without proper training. If we assume that the gun he used was small -- after all nobody saw it -- and given that the bullets were homemade, therefore pretty unpredictable in their behavior, and also that the shot was pulled off in a crowd amid smoke from firecrackers, thus both precluding careful aim and obscuring the target, the fact that the gunman hit Chen at all, anywhere, is something of a surprise. The idea that he could aim, with a reasonable expectation of hitting, either head, the heart or the stomach is sheer foolishness.
There is a logical principle known as Occam's Razor according to which of two competing theories, the simplest explanation is to be preferred. Discussion of the shooting shows massive ignorance of this principle. Hearing pan-greens speculate that Chen was shot by bookmakers who wanted to clean up on a win by the outsider in the race is no different a failure of common sense than Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan's (
The simplest story is always the most persuasive and the simplest story here is that a lone pan-blue supporter, possibly ex-military so with a working knowledge of firearms, driven to a frenzy by the pro-Chen hoopla in Tainan and the amazing level of hate propaganda in the pan-blue campaign -- Chen as Hitler, Osama bin Laden, former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, etc -- decided to take matters into his own hands.
And yet of all possible explanations this is the one that is least discussed.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS