There is no question that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government that came to power on May 20 has not offered the friendliest of environments for the remnants of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government. After all, accusing the nation’s (now former) representative to Japan, Koh Se-kai (許世楷), of “treason” over his handling of the Diaoyutai (釣魚台) islands incident is hardly the kind of behavior one would expect from an inclusive government.
Still, this does not mean that the few representatives and heads of state-run companies appointed during the Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) era should heed the DPP’s call to quit their posts lest the KMT use them as “scapegoats” for its missteps, which have been plentiful since it assumed power. On the contrary, it is under circumstances such as these, with the stock market on a downward spiral, growing social discontent over rising commodity prices and strained alliances with allies, that a country needs a multiplicity of voices — more importantly, voices within the government that, despite strong resistance, are nevertheless in a position to effect change.
The need for different opinions and solid political experience has never been greater now that the KMT has displayed its ineptitude, proclivity for balderdash and lack of tact. Old hands who steered the ship in the past eight years have accumulated a wealth of knowledge and made many contacts that could help stabilize the situation. And they certainly could offer better, more reassuring policies than pleas to have “faith” in the stock market, or unnecessarily alienating a good ally over an incident of little consequence.
Given its winner-take-all attitude, the KMT could make life difficult for DPP appointees who choose to stay in government. Staying put would involve working against the current, requiring no small amount of personal sacrifice. But this is what patriots are made of — individuals who put the welfare of the nation before political affiliation or personal comfort, who defy the odds in the name of the country that entrusts them with heavy responsibilities.
By calling on the remnants of the DPP government to jump ship before the failings of the KMT government tarnish their image, the DPP is only replicating the zero-sum approach to politics of the KMT. This risks giving the impression that the DPP cares more about its image than the health of the nation. DPP Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has every reason to say that she is “concerned” — a word she used repeatedly at a function with foreign correspondents on Friday — about the way events have unfolded since the KMT came into office. She was also right to say that the DPP has nothing to gain from the KMT doing serious — possibly irreparable — damage to the national interest.
But if she meant it when she said she wanted her party to be seen as one that puts the nation first and its interests second, Tsai and the rest of the DPP leadership would encourage the few DPP appointees left in government to stay behind the lines and to fight as hard as they can to protect the interests of the nation.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS