Glory built on tragedy
As a former Republic of China (ROC) Air Force security force (SF, now under ROC Military Command) field unit commander who led many young men and women like the wrongly executed Chiang Kuo-ching (江國慶), I wanted to respond to Wu Ching-chin’s (吳景欽) insightful article (“Chiang Kuo-ching deserves justice,” June 4, page 8) and raise additional points from a tactical leadership view as well as points about the ethics of professional military officers.
First, on the issue of moral awareness and military morale, following the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Special Investigation Panel’s (SIP) decision not to indict any of the officers involved in this notorious case, the public response was overwhelming and continues to be the topic of conversation across the country.
To ease the public outcry, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), as commander-in-chief of the ROC Armed Forces, has personally offered a solemn apology and expressions of regret to Chiang’s mother, the brave surviving parent after his father passed away after many years of living with frustration and anger over the loss of his beloved son.
The president has demanded that the Ministry of National Defense re-investigate the case and clear Chiang’s name, which is belated justice for an innocent young man who was brutally tortured before being killed for a crime he didn’t commit.
This process must be carried out in a timely manner to promote moral awareness among all officers, junior and senior, and sustain morale for a military that has been tremendously impacted by this case.
Second, the decision-making should be based on the rule of law and due process, not on a military commander’s personal opinion of “not airing dirty laundry in public.” In Chiang’s case, the poor judgement of the air force commander led to a series of mishaps.
When crimes are committed inside military barracks, as in this case, the military police should be the first to investigate, according to the nation’s military justice system, not a --counter-intelligence unit whose task is to handle military -intelligence-related violations, such as espionage or treason, within the armed services.
The third is the lack of professional training received by counter-intelligence unit officers who were involved in the investigation, most of whom were trained in general political warfare with very limited knowledge of criminal investigation, not to mention forensics.
Their initial assignment to the investigation resulted in the mishandling of the case, which was characterized by inhumane treatment (torture) and improper gathering of evidence.
The fourth point I would like to bring up is the ironic issue of officers’ code of ethics.
As an SF field unit commander of those airmen and airwomen serving our nation, we were instructed by senior political warfare officers not to use any verbally abusive language nor to use corporal punishment against service members under any circumstances.
Any officer found in violation of those instructions faced serious punishment, which would negatively impact one’s military career.
In Chiang’s case, all officers involved did just the opposite. Incredibly, they were not punished, but received medals and promotions. This is a slap in the face to all the good officers in the ROC Armed Forces who have exhibited positive leadership and treated soldiers like young brothers and sisters.
When people discuss military power, we often think of high-tech weaponry and fancy hardware, but it is the frontline soldiers like Chiang who do the fighting, not the generals.
As the old proverb says, “the success of the general is built on 10 thousand skeletons,” meaning that soldiers fight and die in battle, not in military prisons.
This country owes so much to Chiang’s family. The military must do its best to clear Chiang’s name as soon as possible and to never repeat this mistake.
Chiang Kuo-ching, please rest in heaven. You will see justice done on this earth.
FRANKLIN HUANG
Taipei
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing