It is rare that this newspaper has any time for Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
Of course Ma has since learned the expediency of blame-dodging -- the man that can congratulate himself on his stellar performance in the wake of Typhoon Nari has obviously forgotten what "unconscionable" means. But with him as the exception, it is hard to remember any other case of someone resigning on a matter of principle.
Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) meeting with James Soong (宋楚瑜) and the 10-point consensus that issued from it was not an administrative stumble, rather it was the most "unconscionable" betrayal of principle since Koo Hsien-jung (辜顯榮) surrendered Taipei to the Japanese. The fact that Chen, by all accounts, still fails to understand what he did wrong in sawing up his reelection campaign platform and burning it as an offering to Soong's vanity, reminds us of his dubious suitability as leader of the pan-greens in the first place. He was always too much of a trimmer, just a little too spineless, for the taste of many greens. He was, unfortunately, the most electable candidate they had, which is what has brought us to the current impasse.
Such reflections lead us to two questions: first, given the sheer outrageousness of Chen's action, why has nobody jumped ship? True, four presidential advisers quit in disgust, though the most vociferous of them withdrew his resignation when asked to, but four, or rather three, out of over 100 is hardly a mass walk-out. And no Cabinet minister or DPP heavyweight quit. Indeed some of the loudest deep-green tub-thumpers have been groveling apologists: foreign minister Mark Chen (
For members of the Cabinet -- at least those who are actually greens -- anyone of any principle should have tendered their resignation the evening of the meeting when the 10 points became known. Chen was not -- is not -- worth supporting; in fact it is hard to see how any person of principle could even shake his hand.
For the DPP, the only response was to repudiate the agreement immediately and in full. If the party leadership had refused to do this the legislative caucus could have tried to redeem some honor by doing so themselves.
We have, however, seen none of this, to which all we can say is that those who have not walked are guilty of betrayal by not dissociating themselves from Chen's coat-turning.
And this brings us to our second question. 2008 will see the back of Chen; who will replace him? It is not too early to think about this. In fact, by their reactions to the Chen-Soong deal should contenders be judged. Supine approval? No thanks. Coruscating condemnation? That's our candidate. But at the moment where, or who is this paragon of the virtues that the invertebrate Chen so conspicuously lacks?
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS