Letters:

Get real, Lien Chan

Your editorial ("Choosing style over substance," March 26, page 8) nailed it. Forget about policy. The KMT needs to invest heavily in garish posturing in order to woo the disaffected who found a new messiah in James Soong (宋楚瑜). In theory this should not be too difficult. The People First Party seems to be a charisma-driven one man band, so why not pump up Lien Chan's (連戰) sex appeal and strut him around in platform shoes? It's as viable a suggestion as you will find.

Problem is, like Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) before him, Lien never really got into the camp monstrousness that has come to define KMT election campaigns. Who could ever forget Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) Taipei rally to support Ma at the last mayoral election? Dressed up like a Roman centurion at a baseball game, and brandishing a sword that would make Russell Crowe blush, Lee actually looked the part, whereas Ma seemed to do little else but grin sheepishly by his side.

Lee was always the P.T. Barnum of Taiwan politics, but under this impresario the suckers were ultimately "one China" devotees. The problem with the glam rock solution is that it requires a sense of humor and nothing could worse characterize the self-importance of sombre old unificationism. Though I would dearly, dearly love to see Lien spitting fake blood and hacking at a bass guitar shaped like an axe, it's hard to be optimistic when the role he was born to play was Smithers to China's Montgomery Burns.

Martin Williams

Sydney, Australia

Soldiers have many roles

I refer to your report, "Soldiers need job definition" (March 26, page 3).

From time immemorial, soldiers have entered into service, through conscription or enlistment, with the express understanding that they are bound to perform such duties as their superiors deem beneficial to the national interest. These duties have often included engaging foreign and domestic enemies, and if necessary, dying to prevent those enemies from damaging or destroying the nation.

Not all enemies, however, wear uniforms and carry guns. Some are not even human, and in many cases, these non-human foes actually represent greater threats to the national well-being than do armed troops. Matters that affect food supplies, such as rice that will spoil if not harvested promptly and animals with communicable diseases that could wipe out herds are definitely in this non-human-threat category, and if the military can't be called upon to deal with them, then what good is it?

The notion that some "military personnel law" limiting the duties that soldiers can be asked to perform, or worse, throwing performance of such duties open to debate, is dangerous almost beyond description and should go no further than the academic discussions your article reported. The main danger is that soldiers may be led to question their superiors when not in possession of all the knowledge pertaining to a situation. Such a practice violates the main cohesive element that holds all military organizations together: discipline. Once that's lost, armies become nothing more than mobs with guns.

Taiwan's military already suffers from relatively low morale and shaky discipline, if reports are accurate, so adding this incendiary principle to an already volatile situation is unthinkable.

None of the foregoing should be construed as advocating prohibiting soldiers from questioning and even refusing to obey orders that violate national laws and military regulations. Soldiers must always have these rights, but they must never be allowed to question lawful orders legally given. If they are, only chaos can ensue. Consider also that the brief terms most soldiers serve in Taiwan are the only services, beyond paying taxes, they will ever render to the country, so it is ludicrous to even suggest that some jobs may be too demeaning for them to perform. What do the academics and retired officers who came up with this foolishness propose? That Filipinos and Thais be brought in to do the "dirty, dangerous, and difficult" tasks the military now handles?