Don't think for a minute that the resignation of high-level officials signifies responsible leadership. Actually, the resignations of Tang Fei (唐飛) and Yu Shyi-kun stand out as very bad examples.
It doesn't matter if Tang really wants to be the premier or not. Nor does it matter if he's serious about resigning, or just being polite. The fact remains that since he accepted A-bian's
In just four months, Tang has offered to resign three times. This alone is enough to prove that Tang takes his duty as premier very lightly. Otherwise, he wouldn't immediately offer to resign as soon as a crisis arises.
If he is serious about the job and clearly understands his mission as the head of the Executive Yuan, he should very carefully consider the following question: If he doesn't do the job, what will be the effect on the people of Taiwan? Has Tang given this question enough thought?
Nobody doubts that the government should take responsibility for the Pachang Creek incident. But seeing as the government is a hierarchical system of elephantine proportions, must a show of responsible action necessarily assume the form of the premier's resignation?
Tang has set the wrong example. He thought he was relieving the interior and defense ministries of their political responsibilies, but that's not what happened. Not only that, he even managed to drag the rest of the cabinet down with him.
Under the current Constitution, the authority to form a Cabinet is limited to the premier -- so there is no way a premier alone can submit a resignation. Unless of course Tang thinks that the entire Cabinet was at fault for the tragedy and therefore everyone should take responsibility with a collective resignation. Other-wise, he wouldn't have been able to resign -- where will he put the personnel powers of the new premier?
Thus, Tang's most recent attempt to resign lacks an understanding of even the most basic constitutional principles. Does all this not denote his taking the premiership lightly? To borrow his words, this fully shows his "rashness and ignorance." Otherwise, one might question his psychological wellbeing.
Yu Shyi-kun is the same. He thought that his resignation was an example of an "individual sacrifice for the collective good," giving the impression of being duty-bound to push forward with his decision. He even thought that he had averted a crisis.
What he failed to consider, however, was that his resignation actually extended the definition of political responsibility in an even more ludicrous direction. In effect, he reinforced Tang's mistake. Yu thought that his actions would dispelled the public's discontent, but his thinking is just naive. Yu's resignation has no value whatsoever.
How can people avoid feeling as if Tang and Yu have set the worst possible example?
Wu Yen-ling is a journalist.
Translated by Scudder Smith
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath