Last year was a bad one for national leaders around the world, most of whom were unable to hold their heads high. Although it is difficult to satisfy the public at a time of economic downturn, high unemployment, global warming and complex domestic political, economic and social problems, this is a test of our leaders.
Like US President Barack Obama, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) started off with high approval ratings and has since seen his popularity drop. But these two leaders have responded very differently to the situation.
In an interview with ABC anchor Diane Sawyer last Monday, Obama made a memorable statement that many leaders — world or otherwise — could stand to learn from: “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.”
Ma, meanwhile, has responded to his party’s losses in local elections and legislative by-elections by bringing in King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) to orchestrate election campaigns as the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) secretary-general and woo back voters.
He is also working to improve communications with pan-blue legislators and is reportedly trying to restore the funeral subsidy for veteran soldiers to win back deep-blue voters and consolidate grassroots support.
Since the first day of his presidency, Ma’s hopes for a second term in office have been obvious. His actions and words are guided by this agenda.
The government’s policies are aimed at ingratiating itself with the public with the next presidential election in mind, while true reform has stopped for fear of displeasing voters. The government’s rescue and reconstruction efforts in the wake of Typhoon Morakot inspired Ma’s critics in the media to quip that “a corrupt president” had been replaced by “a stupid president.”
Taiwan and the US have their own challenges to face in terms of healthcare. Although liberals and conservatives alike have attacked Obama on the issue of a national healthcare program, he remains as determined as ever to see through a reform that he believes is imperative. Though the Democrats lost the recent senatorial by-election in Massachusetts — a sign of public uncertainty about the healthcare system and other matters — Obama is not looking ahead to the next election. He might even be burning bridges by insisting on tackling a major problem rather than ingratiating himself with voters and Congress.
By comparison, Department of Health (DOH) Minister Yaung Chih-liang (楊志良), who wants to raise premiums to cover funding shortages, is being accused of taking the public’s hard-earned money without so much as calling in debts owed by Taipei and Kaohsiung cities. Taipei’s debt to the national healthcare system stands at more than NT$34 billion (US$1.06 billion), while Kaohsiung’s is NT$16 billion. These debts have taken an undeniable toll on the health insurance system. Significantly, Ma is partly responsible for Taipei’s role in this conundrum.
Ma should look to Obama, who acknowledges public anger, and ask himself whether he is listening to the public — and whether he understands its point of view. Government reform will remain at a standstill until Ma stops making re-election his top priority. And if the government starts delivering a quality administration, maybe then the public will reward Ma by re-electing him.
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
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS