Despite repeated apologies at a press conference on Tuesday, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) repeatedly stressed that his leadership is strong and forceful. I believe it would be difficult to find someone who would not be angered by these remarks.
Ma offered five apologies. An apology is an expression of one’s regret for making a mistake, yet Ma repeatedly praised his own leadership throughout the press conference. Since his leadership is strong and forceful, he obviously did not have anything to apologize for. He must have been apologizing for others. But who?
First, Ma said the biggest problem with Typhoon Morakot was the unprecedented rainfall — the largest amount in 200 years.
The first party to have made a mistake, then, was obviously the gods, so Ma must have been apologizing on their behalf.
Then, Ma said many had been taught a lesson that leaving dangerous places is the best policy. This clearly reflected his earlier discontent over the failure of locals to evacuate. Ma, then, must have been apologizing for those buried alive in the mudslides who were wrong not to flee.
Third, four days after the Sept. 21, 1999, earthquake, then president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) issued an emergency decree. More than 70 percent of the public believe that Ma should also have done so to avoid disruption in the chain of command. Ma, however, said such orders cannot be issued recklessly because this would violate the democratic spirit. Democracy was thus to blame, so Ma must have been apologizing on its behalf.
Fourth, Ma said the Disaster Prevention and Protection Act (災害防救法) is comprehensive, so an emergency decree was unnecessary. The act was thus to blame for being too perfect. But Ma also pledged to establish a disaster prevention and relief agency for effective and comprehensive planning. The government now would have to amend the act, which apparently isn’t so perfect after all. That means Ma was apologizing on behalf of the act, both for being perfect and for not being perfect enough.
Fifth, Ma’s leadership is clearly outstanding, and it is difficult for his team to be equally so. He promised to investigate the activities of his team — so they were definitely making mistakes.
But who in the team should be blamed? Many said the military departed for disaster zones only two hours after the 921 Earthquake, but that they procrastinated this time. When asked by journalists whether he had exercised his powers as commander-in-chief, he said “of course” and that he inspected the disaster areas in that status. Since Ma is such a brilliant commander, the troops must surely be to blame.
He also emphasized that according to the law, disaster prevention and relief is the responsibility of local governments with support from the central government. Local governments thus had greater responsibility for mistakes than the central government. His fifth apology, then, was on behalf of local government officials.
When asked why the Ministry of Foreign Affairs rejected foreign aid, Ma’s answer was very odd. He rebuked reporters for politicizing the issue, saying that they should focus on humanitarianism. Since the ministry’s rejection obviously was not a humanitarian issue, there was nothing wrong with the disaster relief effort, and an apology for this was unnecessary.
In feudal times, emperors issued edicts blaming themselves when natural disasters occurred. Ma issued an edict of sorts at the press conference, except that this edict blamed the gods, the law, democracy, the public and government officials. With such a president — blaming everyone else while praising himself — we can sigh and shed a tear.
But we will not accept his claims of innocence.
According to an Apple Daily opinion poll, very few respondents thought victims or the military were to blame. About 13 percent said local governments should be held responsible, 15 percent said the Cabinet was to blame and 45 percent blamed the president. The results of a CNN poll showed that 82 percent of respondents felt Ma should resign. A world-class embarrassment!
Surprisingly, the results of an ICRT opinion poll found that 97 percent of respondents thought Ma should quit. This English-language radio channel’s audience is largely in Greater Taipei, and many are highly educated young people — Ma biggest supporters, who are now displeased with him.
Finally, the most severely damaged areas were Aboriginal villages in which about 70 percent to 80 percent of locals backed Ma. His popularity is experiencing an unprecedented landslide among his two strongest support groups.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS