When a natural disaster strikes, an analogy is often drawn between a government’s disaster relief efforts and that of its military going to battle. By this analogy, the government lost the battle of Typhoon Morakot.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), as commander-in-chief, must shoulder responsibility.
Ma’s performance was so poor that Beijing and the People’s Liberation Army, which no doubt are scrutinizing his actions in the face of crisis, must be slapping themselves on the back. Never could they have imagined that Ma would be such a poor leader. They must feel that Taiwan would succumb easily to an invasion.
“I exercise strong leadership,” Ma said on Tuesday at a press conference when asked by reporters how he viewed his performance since the typhoon struck on Aug. 8.
A quick glance at poll results published by the media yesterday reveals Ma’s plunging approval rate and the public’s dissatisfaction with the government’s rescue and relief efforts. There is a huge gap between the president’s definition of “strong leadership” and the public’s appraisal.
If the government’s performance in the wake of Morakot is Ma’s idea of “strong leadership,” the public should be very concerned about the government’s capabilities.
Defending his response, Ma said bad weather was the main reason for the delay in the government’s rescue efforts, preventing it from airlifting trapped villagers.
The safety of rescue teams must be taken into consideration, but Ma could have ordered the military to launch other rescue efforts rather than waiting three days.
Surely Ma does not mean to imply that the military cannot handle bad weather. If so, he may have to beg China not to invade during a typhoon.
Within hours of the 921 Earthquake on Sept. 21, 1999, a directive was issued to all military personnel, warning that whoever failed in disaster relief would be dealt with according to military law.
The directive demonstrated the commander-in-chief’s determination and recognized the seriousness of the situation, setting an example that carried over to the troops.
This time around, military personnel were forced to wait for orders, although many soldiers were anxious to get to the disaster zone and help the victims of flooding and mudslides.
A leader’s attitude is important and sets the tone for his subordinates. If a commander seems unconcerned about rescue efforts, what is to be expected of those under him?
It should come as no surprise, then, that Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) got a hair-cut and Executive Yuan Secretary-General Hsueh Hsiang-chuan (薛香川) was out dining on haute cuisine while the south faced the onslaught of Morakot.
“A competent leader can get efficient service from poor troops, while on the contrary an incapable leader can demoralize the best of troops,” late US brigadier general John Pershing once said — words that Ma should treat as counsel.
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