The government’s procrastination and passive attitude toward relief efforts in southern Taiwan is bringing additional suffering to victims of the disaster. The nation is in uproar and support for President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) has dropped below 20 percent. Although Ma says a Cabinet reshuffle is on the cards, Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) has said that Ma and Liu will not discuss the issue until next month, suggesting that Liu will stay.
If, to Ma, a reshuffle means removing a couple of ministers while keeping Liu in place, the conclusion readily follows that the rest of Ma’s term will be a long battle defending his premier.
The scale of the destruction following Typhoon Morakot, the ferocity of the criticism of the government and the apparently disorientated Ma-Liu team amount to a comprehensive political disaster that cannot be fixed by swapping a few ministers, especially when the main targets of criticism are not those ministers who have offered to fall on their swords, but Ma and Liu themselves. Unless Liu is sent packing, Ma will not be able to contain the anger; instead, he will create formidable opposition.
Ma continues to insist that the reason he did not declare a state of emergency after Morakot hit is that the Disaster Prevention and Protection Act (災害防救法) provided the government with all the authority and resources it needed to deal with the situation. The law names the premier as the convener of the Central Disaster Prevention and Protection Council; he is the one who shoulders responsibility for prevention measures and relief efforts — and who should step down in case of failure.
Following the Bajhang River (八掌溪) incident in 2000, deputy premier Yu Shyi-kun (游錫堃) stepped down. The scope of the Morakot disaster is much wider than that isolated incident: Many more people have died and public discontent is much more intense. Yet the government wants to replace only a few ministers. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) will never accept this, several Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are already rumbling, and even pan-blue media outlets are certain to sneer.
Most importantly, how could the public be expected to accept such an outcome? It would be a decision that the government would regret for the rest of its days.
In trying to escape with a minor reshuffle, Ma is probably considering post-disaster reconstruction and related political issues. Liu has experience from the 921 Earthquake reconstruction effort, and this could deflect some criticism over retaining him. Ma is probably also worrying that removing Liu would set off a series of power struggles in the KMT, and that in trying to maintain the balance, he might need to fight for Liu to the bitter end.
However, Ma’s insistence that Liu stay would show total disregard for public opinion and set a new milestone for elitist arrogance.
Protecting a decision-making structure that no longer functions is a distortion of the meaning of responsible governance. The public wants a strong, able and effective leader who can lead the government and shape the Cabinet to meet new circumstances. Ma, however, is on the verge of compounding his atrocious response to the disaster with a political decision that would bring the government into general disrepute.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS