I am shocked that Yang Yung-nane (
Let us hope that Yang's assertion that "the security of the president equals the security of the nation" was a mistranslation because it is patently absurd.
No head of state of any country anywhere is equivalent to the country he/she serves. Individuals occupying such offices come and go -- at least in democracies -- but their nations and the offices they occupy during their terms endure.
Thus, while the security of the nation is clearly related to the security of the institution of head of state, the security of individuals serving in that capacity is of vastly lesser importance.
Evidence of this difference is not difficult to find. At no time, for example, was the security of the US ever at risk as a result of the assassination of president John F. Kennedy in 1963.
Similar examples from other countries can also be found.
The second misinterpretation Yang makes is his failure to note that the proximate cause of the guard's suicide was instability so great as to render him incapable of dealing with a personal crisis in a more restrained and less violent manner.
Instability of such magnitude is not created by a single shattered romance. Rather, it develops over time and can have physical as well as mental or emotional bases. In other words, the man was a bomb lacking only a trigger and likely had been for some time.
Why did no one notice this? How many others in the national security forces are on or near the ragged edge of violence? These questions, and others, must be answered in the coming days or weeks and appropriate measures taken with similar dispatch. They cannot wait for the "government ... [to] ... spend some time examining the presidential security system and reviewing problems in organizational management" as Yang advocates.
Yang is also miles off-base in asserting that "focusing on the guards would only make them feel like there's something wrong with them and would further undermine their morale or dignity." Surely he knows that responsible officials can present an exhaustive screening program aimed at rooting out unstable security force members in many ways.
One such program might be to allude to the possibility that the public now questions the ability of the force to protect government officials and that the proposed screening is intended to demonstrate the stability and professionalism of force members.
Concern for the "morale or dignity" of force personnel should be, at best, a minor priority. These officers are either members of the military or its equivalent.
As such, they should be disciplined enough to accept testing of their mental and emotional fitness to serve, just as they accept testing of their physical fitness and weapons-handling ability.
If any are not so well disciplined, they probably should not be serving in such a sensitive capacity in the first place.
The method of dealing with marginal members of the security forces (those "with issues or who have been employed through connections or to fill a vacancy") that Yang favors is also flawed. He says they should be "retrained." But retrained as what? Truck drivers? Nannies?
If he means that guards who obtained their jobs as a result of any motivation other than sincere interest in security work, or who are dangerously unstable, should be indoctrinated by forced attendance to lectures on the Three Principles of the People or "the Tao of Security," he needs to reevaluate his position -- or perhaps even get out of academia for a while and take long walks in the real world.
Security is a profession -- a vital one -- and those involved in it must be treated accordingly. That means holding aspirants and incumbents to the highest mental, moral, physical and emotional standards. Nothing less will do.
Yang is correct in asserting that the deficiencies exposed by the guard's suicide must be addressed. I differ with him only in the manner in which they should be addressed and the urgency of the need for such attention.
Kung Teh-wen
Chingshui,
Taichung County
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
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,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS