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.
In a Facebook post on Wednesday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) wrote: “The KMT must fall for Taiwan to improve.’ Allow me to ask the question again: Is this really true?” It matters not how many times Hsu asks the question, my answer will always be the same: “Yes, the KMT must be toppled for Taiwan to improve.” In the lengthy Facebook post, titled “What were those born in the 1980s guilty of?” Hsu harked back to the idealistic aspirations of the 2014 Sunflower movement before heaping opprobrium on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP)
The scuffle between Chinese embassy staffers in Fiji and a Taiwanese diplomat at a Republic of China (ROC) Double Ten National Day celebration has turned into a public relations opportunity for the government, Beijing and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Although the incident occurred on Oct. 8, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) downplayed it, only for the story to be picked up by the foreign media, forcing the ministry to respond. The public and opposition parties asked why the government had failed to remonstrate more strongly in the first instance. It is still unclear whether the ministry missed a trick
US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, former US vice president Joe Biden, are holding their final debate tonight. In their foreign policy debate, China is sure to be a major issue of contention for the two candidates. Here are several questions the moderator should pose to the candidates: For both: In the first televised US presidential debates in 1960, then-Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy and his Republican counterpart, Richard Nixon, were asked whether the US should intervene if communist China attacked Taiwan’s outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu. Kennedy said no, unless the main island of Taiwan was also attacked.
For most of us, the colorful, otherworldly marinescapes of coral reefs are as remote as the alien landscapes of the moon. We rarely, if ever, experience these underwater wonderlands for ourselves — we are, after all, air-breathing, terrestrial creatures mostly cocooned in cities. It is easy not to notice the perilous state they are in: We have lost 50 percent of coral reefs in the past 20 years and more than 90 percent are expected to die by 2050, a presentation at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Diego, California, earlier this year showed. As the oceans heat further and