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.
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Former Fijian prime minister Mahendra Chaudhry spoke at the Yushan Forum in Taipei on Monday, saying that while global conflicts were causing economic strife in the world, Taiwan’s New Southbound Policy (NSP) serves as a stabilizing force in the Indo-Pacific region and offers strategic opportunities for small island nations such as Fiji, as well as support in the fields of public health, education, renewable energy and agricultural technology. Taiwan does not have official diplomatic relations with Fiji, but it is one of the small island nations covered by the NSP. Chaudhry said that Fiji, as a sovereign nation, should support
RSS