According to news reports, not long after Pan Hsi-hsien
First, how can one just "retire" from the position of NSB personnel director -- a position of such importance -- and then take a job in China? Is it because there aren't any laws and regulations governing this, or are there simply no teeth to enforce these laws?
It seems that there are regulations barring persons retiring from important public positions from going into civilian jobs (at least this is the case for some public servants). In also appears that these retirees cannot work in regions where they might divulge secrets to which they had access. (If there aren't any such rules, some should be laid down immediately).
If the law already regulates those retiring from government positions and yet this kind of incident still occurs, isn't it manifestly evident that a flaw exists in the way the law is applied?
Furthermore, doesn't this incident show that the application of the law has failed at all levels, from the NSB to the Bureau of Entry and Exit? If this is indeed the reason behind the problems, these agencies must rigorously review what happened, to discover where the mistake occurred. If the problem is found to be a systemic one, then these agencies must immediately set about rectifying it.
Second, how could news so closely related to national security be broken by the media, allowing everyone (especially the Chinese government) to hear about it? It is, to say the least, reasonable to presume that Chinese officials would be all too keen to get hold of someone of Pan's standing and that the leaking of such information would make him a specific target in China. There would also -- almost inevitably -- be damage to our national interests that would be difficult to repair.
According to news reports, the leak may have been due to in-fighting in the NSB. If this is true, how could someone do something like this for personal gain? It is simply unthinkable.
What's done is done. Neither identifying nor punishing those responsible is likely to compensate for the damage done. But it should be decided where the focus in solving the problem should now be.
I believe any strategy for resolving the issue should place our national interests at its very core. Government ministries in particular (not to mention the Presidential Office, NSB and Legislative Yuan) should be careful to preserve national interests in their handling of problems arising from this incident, in order to prevent this problem -- this crisis -- from causing further harm.
Yang Yung-nane is a professor in the department of administrative management, Central Police University.
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