What is this new penchant of political leaders to make promises so florid that they carry with them a self-destruct mechanism if things go astray?
Premier Su Tseng-chang (
If Su is sincere about reducing crime, he has done himself no favors by committing himself to a result that relies on complex statistical analyses -- the trashing of which has become a pan-blue-camp specialty, regardless of the strength of the evidence -- as well as the public's perception via opinion polls that crime is falling. Worse, this perception is more a product of media manipulation and hyperbole than it is of personal experience of crime and social trends.
Tying the leadership of a Cabinet and the morale of its ministers to this standard is unnecessary -- and obstructive. Instead of putting pressure on Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
Su's backers in the party must be hoping against hope that Minister of the Interior Lee Yi-yang (
Last year's local government elections were in part a test of the new party chairmen. Ma cleverly promised to step down if the pan-blue camp did not secure a certain number of city and county electorates. Ma was clever because the number he chose was modest under the circumstances. Su almost immediately followed with the same promise, brandishing a number so unrealistic that he was more or less forced to start considering his next career move there and then.
But at the time, it seemed that Su could step down as chairman of the DPP with honor. He simply did not have the time to fix the mess that he inherited, but his resignation gave the party a brief shot of dignity that someone could accept responsibility and take a fall.
Now Su has repeated this tactic. But this time he doesn't represent a party; he heads the Executive Yuan. It is a radical move at a time that the Cabinet requires strength, solidarity and confidence after years of instability and lack of momentum. For the sake of the government, Su would be better advised to never give up, never give in, never resign until all other options have been exhausted. Now that Su has floated the prospect of resignation after the shortest time possible in the job, DPP supporters who have seen their premiers come and go must be starting to get that sinking feeling again.
Meanwhile, the Mainlander-dominated criminal network Bamboo Union and other pro-KMT thugs must be rubbing their hands with barely suppressed glee. If Su is Ma's only credible challenger for the presidency, then here's an open invitation for them from Su himself to contribute to his possible removal from office by markedly increasing their criminal activity. Pro-DPP criminals, for their part, are hardly likely to wind back their operations and place limits on their livelihoods to indulge a politician's risky strategy.
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