In recent weeks the government dragged its feet on a number of issues, including allegations that former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislator Diane Lee (李慶安) lied about her US citizenship, toxic pollution in Chaoliao (潮寮) Village and uncertainty over the implementation of International Accounting Standards Statement No. 10.
A consequence of the government’s failure to deal with these problems promptly is that they became worse and hurt the image of the government in the process.
Let us consider the case of Lee’s suspected dual citizenship. More than 300 days have passed since the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presented evidence that she is a US citizen. Lee maintains that she gave up her US citizenship upon making a loyalty oath to the Republic of China (ROC) when she became a public servant. However, her behavior was in sharp contrast with many US citizens who have returned to Taiwan to take up civil service posts in central or local governments. Unlike Lee, those people renounced their US nationality at US representative offices precisely because they did not assume that taking up an official ROC position automatically led to loss of US citizenship.
If, as Lee asserts, assuming office leads to automatic loss of US citizenship, then why was she so relentless in her interrogation of then-Taipei deputy mayor Chen Shih-meng (陳師孟) of the DPP on whether he was a US citizen?
Meanwhile, the KMT and the government went against their better judgment by tolerating and protecting her. They could have forced her to follow the law and resign as a legislator. Instead, they allowed the case to drag on, sowing controversy and confrontation, much to the annoyance of the public.
As for the toxic fumes in the Tafa Industrial District (大發工業區), a visit by the Environmental Protection Administration minister failed to find a culprit. Instead, the minister threw a smokescreen at legislators — who, we must remember, were elected to monitor the government — saying it would be impossible to find a guilty party and immediately eliminate the source of the problem. Adding insult to injury, he also derided the dean of a nearby school for having what he described as overly developed olfactory senses.
The government lacks crisis management skills and fails to understand the needs — and fears — of the public.
Finally, the Presidential Office’s group of economic advisers unexpectedly and inexplicably suggested a few days ago that the implementation of International Accounting Standards Statement No. 10 would have to be delayed. Late last year, the statement was vigorously discussed in business, accounting and investor circles. It was also appraised twice by the Financial Supervisory Commission, which conducted an in-depth assessment before announcing that it should be implemented according to schedule.
The suggested postponement on the eve of implementation risks creating problems for the Cabinet, ministries and the stock market. It could also cause public apprehension and damage Taiwan’s international image.
These incidents are only some examples of the government’s delayed response mechanism and its inability to understand important issues. The government and the KMT keep harping on about public suffering without understanding the root causes of that pain or doing anything to remedy the situation.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS