National Security Council Secretary-General Su Chi (蘇起) has a problem.
First, his wife Chen Yue-ching (陳月卿) went on a book promotion tour to China. Now, his brother Su Yung-chin (蘇永欽) is set to take up a visiting professorship at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou.
Su’s wife and brother are not civil servants, so is harm inflicted if they travel to China on professional business? Are these matters of national security?
The Presidential Office says not.
The problem is that Su Chi is the man entrusted with maintaining national security — and defining its parameters. When members of his immediate and extended family travel to China for business or to teach while others are restricted from doing so, ordinary people have every right to be cynical if the government sits by and does nothing.
Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung’s (江丙坤) son was criticized for doing business in China — not least for probable conflict of interest. The fallout of this led President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to say that public sentiment must be taken into account — and Chiang almost left the SEF.
People close to former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) are suspected of conflict of interest. There are also concerns that KMT members participating in KMT-Chinese Communist Party negotiations are using the forum to advance their personal and financial interests.
After Chen’s book promotion in China embarrassed her husband and made trouble for the government, Ma said this kind of incident would “never happen again.” Yet the Presidential Office knew of Su Yung-chin’s offer from Zhejiang University before it became public and said nothing.
It seems neither a conflict of interest nor the perception of one is of concern to the Ma government — even on matters of national security — unless there is a sufficiently large backlash in the media.
Yet the feeling that basic principles of national security can be casually flouted may pose a challenge to Ma’s leadership as time goes on.
After KMT hack Hsu Shu-po (�?�) was allegedly promised the position of chairman of Taipei 101 in exchange for not running for Yunlin County commissioner, the Presidential Office sensed that the backlash would be too great — regardless of the truth of the matter — and might lead to legal action over inducement involving electoral processes. Within hours the Presidential Office told the Cabinet to withdraw the appointment.
But when Ma hinted at the possibility of KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung’s (吳伯雄) son taking the Taoyuan County commissioner’s post — just as Wu vacated his own post for the president — no one in the party suggested that inducement was involved.
Ma came to power partly on the understanding that he opposed the erosion of good governance, yet here we are, one year on, and a culture of privilege and hubris is being revitalized. In such a climate, even a responsible leader will struggle to look clean.
Su Yung-chin has an exceptional academic record — and is a former chairman of the National Communications Commission. He thus has many ways to make a living, which raises the question as to why he, like Su Chi’s wife, would go to China when he knew it would create problems for the president.
The answer is he and Su Chi’s wife knew it was highly likely they could do so without intervention — and that they might even be congratulated for their efforts.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS