In view of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recent string of poor electoral showings, one would expect members who care about the state of the party to jump at the chance for a frank discussion with party leaders on how to stop the bleeding.
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) dinner for KMT lawmakers on Monday night provided such a chance, giving the lawmakers a rare opportunity to deliver pan-blue supporters’ grievances in person to Ma, who doubles as KMT chairman.
It looked set to be an interesting evening, with a number of legislators saying they would seize the opportunity, but instead turned into a rather bland affair, with lawmakers backing down at the request of KMT Legislator Hsu Yao-chang (徐耀昌).
“I told [them] that we were likely to get ulcers if we talked about serious issues while eating and they all agreed. We can find a better time to offer suggestions,” Hsu told reporters after the dinner.
In the end, Ma may have been the only one to go home that night with an ulcer. The president spent the evening touting his planned economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with Beijing and asking lawmakers to promote it. Legislators also offered some comments on the US beef protocol and the swine flu vaccination program, but skirted the party’s election woes.
A number of KMT lawmakers told the press yesterday that Hsu’s comment had caught them off guard, adding that they did not want to ignore his suggestion “out of respect” for their colleague.
Rather than blaming Hsu, KMT lawmakers who purport to have the public’s grievances in mind should not be so easily dissuaded from voicing criticism.
One would hope that lawmakers who are more than willing to launch a volley of criticism on talk shows would have the guts to challenge Ma to his face. Are we to believe that, out of the kindness of their hearts, legislators wanted to spare Ma from public embarrassment because they feared he might not take criticism very well in a public setting?
Regardless, KMT lawmakers failed their supporters by “playing nice” at the dinner, letting Ma off the hook and ignoring the anxiety among pan-blue supporters over the party’s condition.
Indeed, a glance at the news clip of Monday’s dinner showed everyone smiling and drinking — one might have mistaken it as a feast celebrating an election victory rather than a wake for a string of embarrassing election results.
As for Ma, if he is sincere about seeking the reasons behind the KMT’s poor electoral showing, as he has said, he should have dismissed Hsu’s suggestion and invited those present to fire away on what he and his government have done wrong.
Ma’s approval ratings have tumbled in opinion polls across media outlets, suggesting that a large percentage of the public is questioning his competence and crisis management skills.
But no one can help a government that won’t help itself by opening the door to public opinion — and public dissatisfaction. The Ma administration gains nothing by surrounding itself with pliable voices who don’t dare challenge it in person.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS