After coming under fire for not standing up for Taiwanese taekwondo athlete Yang Shu-chun (楊淑君) in the immediate aftermath of her controversial disqualification from the Asian Games last week, the government finally caught on two days later, holding a press conference on Friday pledging to seek justice for Yang.
However, despite the action undertaken by members of the public who, on their own initiative, gave Yang a hero’s welcome upon her arrival in Taipei on Monday, the government has done little to show that it is determined to follow through on its vow to defend Yang’s name and dignity.
After watching government inaction and listening to officials’ rhetoric, many wonder if President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration is sincere in saying that it will seek justice, or if it is merely hoping that making promises is enough to quell public outrage.
The Ma government said it would offer reasonable compensation to Yang, with Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) adding that Yang would be treated as a gold medalist. It turns out, however, that Yang may not get the NT$3 million (US$98,000) cash award usually presented to gold medal winners, with Wu saying the Sports Affairs Council would have to convene a meeting to determine whether the money would be issued to Yang as a cash award or in the form of a fund for the purpose of training.
The Ma government called for a probe into Yang’s controversial disqualification. With an Asian Taekwondo Union (ATU) investigation still under way, why was the premier so quick and so certain when he defended ATU vice president Zhao Lei (趙磊) on Monday, saying that Zhao did not play a role in Yang’s disqualification?
The Ma government said it would stand behind Yang and fight for fair treatment. The ATU later apologized for posting an article on its Web site accusing Yang and the Taiwan team of cheating, but the apology was only made in a private meeting. If the Ma government is interested in clearing Yang’s name, it should demand that the ATU post the apology on its Web site to make it clear that Yang is not a cheater. In view of the rampant articles in the Chinese media branding Yang a cheater, shouldn’t the Ma government order the Government Information Office to issue a rebuttal or demand that Chinese media correct their libelous reports?
The Ma government said it would seek justice for Yang. Its plan to abandon filing the case with the Court of Arbitration for Sport and instead sue World Taekwondo Federation secretary-general Yang Jin-suk in Guangzhou, China, for slander and forgery perplexes many. Aside from the murky legal proceedings, one prominent question also rings in the minds of many: Can a local court in China restore justice to Yang as effectively as the Court of Arbitration for Sport could?
The unfair disqualification has sparked indignation among Taiwanese. However, it would be even more despicable if the Taiwanese athlete’s own government were to play a part in covering up the real culprit of the unfair ruling and fails to keep its pledge to stand up for its athletes’ rights.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS