The three-man team of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator and chair of the legislature’s Judiciary, Organic Laws and Statutes Committee Hsieh Kuo-liang (謝國樑), National Police Agency Senior Executive Officer John Chu (曲來足) and Ministry of Justice Counselor Chin Jeng-shyang (覃正祥) arrived in Washington on Monday with a mission: Visit the center of US power to rebut recent allegations of a backslide in human rights, an increase in police brutality and political persecution by the judiciary that have tarnished the reputation of the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
But if the performance at their first port of call, the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, was the yardstick with which to judge the success of the venture, then the group may have been better off staying home.
Things started badly as Hsieh embarked on a rambling, directionless 20-minute opening oration that included an outrageous quip that after living in Los Angeles for more than 10 years he knew what police brutality was.
Then came a largely inaudible presentation on the mechanics of the judicial system from Chin, who at times struggled to read his own writing.
Chu’s presentation was better, but his material was one-sided, portraying the police injured during protests against Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) visit last month as the victims. It also contained factual errors and questionable figures concerning the number of injured protesters.
The word “embarrassing” would not even begin to describe the trio’s performance. It was a comedy the Three Stooges would have been proud of.
But worse was to follow, as Hsieh’s eagerness to please and his parroting of the hard pan-blue line quickly turned the presentation, which must have been conceived as a serious government attempt to set the record straight, into an amateurish attempt at whitewash in which the participants had forgotten the paint.
Trying to counter claims of political persecution, Hsieh repeatedly referred to former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). The zeal with which he talked about Chen’s alleged crimes — even when answering questions that did not necessarily concern Chen — must have only reinforced the perception among the audience that Chen is indeed being politically persecuted.
At one point, Hsieh was ranting so much that forum host Stephen Yates had to step in and remind him about the presumption of innocence and other basic legal concepts.
Hsieh’s repeated claims that it was the Democratic Progressive Party that blocked the KMT’s attempts at legal reform for the last eight years would not have convinced this audience. Attendees included people with decades of experience in and knowledge of Taiwanese affairs such as former American Institute in Taiwan chairs Nat Bellocchi and Therese Shaheen and the Heritage Foundation’s John Tkacik, individuals who are fully aware of which party has held a legislative majority during that time.
Then, when the floor opened to questions, the trio did their best to avoid answering anyone who cast doubt on their version of events.
In summary, their arguments were weak, their facts and figures were inaccurate and their presentation was downright awful. As it stands, the video of the session could stand as a tutorial for future delegations of what not to do.
If the Ma administration was worried about opinion in Washington before the trip, this public relations disaster should have them even more concerned.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry