Typhoon Morakot was a turning point for the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九). Its mishandling of the disaster response made a mockery of the slogan — “We’re ready” — adopted by Ma’s campaign team during the 2008 presidential election. After the Morakot fiasco, Ma’s popularity rating plunged from 70 percent to just over 30, and never really recovered. It’s been two years since the typhoon wreaked havoc and the government is still hoping to pick itself up and dust itself off. It’s a shame Ma can’t stop putting his foot in his mouth.
Ma, keen to show solidarity with Morakot victims, spent Saturday in Majia Township (瑪家), Pingtung County, in a new “permanent housing” unit built for those left homeless by the disaster. He said it was a pleasant experience, describing his stay as balmy and comfortable and likening the area to Provence, France, and “Peach Blossom Land” — the latter being the paradise on earth described in a popular Chinese fable.
No sooner had he uttered the word “Provence” than the objections started pouring in. The reference certainly didn’t sit well with many of the disaster’s victims, and Web babble started to question whether Ma thought this was all a holiday. The pan-green camp said his attitude was reminiscent of that of Emperor Hui (晉惠帝) of the Jin Dynasty, infamous for not understanding the plight of ordinary people.
As part of his damage control exercise, Ma took to Facebook to explain that his reference to Provence was meant to express how tranquil and fragrant the area was. He said he didn’t want his words to be distorted by others.
What was Ma thinking, comparing “permanent housing” in a disaster area to living in Provence, with its fine sunshine and blue skies? It’s perfectly possible that he was trying to praise the reconstruction project, but he only succeeded in rubbing salt into the wounds of Morakot’s still-traumatized victims. The allusion was entirely inappropriate. It’s one thing for the president to swan around for a day, but it’s another thing to actually live in the devastated area.
Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) was moved to tears during a press conference on Monday to mark the second anniversary of the disaster, recalling how people had been forced to leave their homes. The opposition sniffed about crocodile tears, given that Wu wasn’t involved in the relief efforts at the time. However, Wu has been responsible for the reconstruction efforts and many of the victims have been openly critical of the government’s record.
The central government’s reconstruction program, costing more than NT$1 billion (US$34.5 million), is seriously behind schedule. The Indigenous Peoples Action Coalition of Taiwan dispatched a group of disaster victims to Taipei to protest the glaring disparity between policy pronouncements and actual deeds, saying that they wanted their own homes back. They also condemned the Ministry of Transport and Communications’ decision not to continue work on two highways they say are key routes connecting their areas with the national road network, without which they cannot ship their produce around Taiwan.
There is quite a difference between the lives of these people and those living in Provence. The government has neglected the psychological and social importance of losing one’s home, and of having to eke out a living in an unfamiliar environment. The reconstruction effort has been found deeply wanting.
There is also a growing divide between Ma himself and the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) way of governing the country, which is felt most keenly in the center and south. Ma won brownie points in the 2008 campaign for his “long-stay” visits, but three years on any political currency he earned has long been spent. His trip to Pingtung over the weekend was an attempt to buy more currency and help close the divide, but it seems to have had the opposite effect.
What began on Feb. 28 as a military campaign against Iran quickly became the largest energy-supply disruption in modern times. Unlike the oil crises of the 1970s, which stemmed from producer-led embargoes, US President Donald Trump is the first leader in modern history to trigger a cascading global energy crisis through direct military action. In the process, Trump has also laid bare Taiwan’s strategic and economic fragilities, offering Beijing a real-time tutorial in how to exploit them. Repairing the damage to Persian Gulf oil and gas infrastructure could take years, suggesting that elevated energy prices are likely to persist. But the most
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), during an interview for the podcast Lanshuan Time (蘭萱時間) released on Monday, said that a US professor had said that she deserved to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize following her meeting earlier this month with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Cheng’s “journey of peace” has garnered attention from overseas and from within Taiwan. The latest My Formosa poll, conducted last week after the Cheng-Xi meeting, shows that Cheng’s approval rating is 31.5 percent, up 7.6 percentage points compared with the month before. The same poll showed that 44.5 percent of respondents
Taiwan should reject two flawed answers to the Eswatini controversy: that diplomatic allies no longer matter, or that they must be preserved at any cost. The sustainable answer is to maintain formal diplomatic relations while redesigning development relationships around transparency, local ownership and democratic accountability. President William Lai’s (賴清德) canceled trip to Eswatini has elicited two predictable reactions in Taiwan. One camp has argued that the episode proves Taiwan must double down on support for every remaining diplomatic ally, because Beijing is tightening the screws, and formal recognition is too scarce to risk. The other says the opposite: If maintaining
India’s semiconductor strategy is undergoing a quiet, but significant, recalibration. With the rollout of India Semiconductor Mission (ISM) 2.0, New Delhi is signaling a shift away from ambition-driven leaps toward a more grounded, capability-led approach rooted in industrial realities and institutional learning. Rather than attempting to enter the most advanced nodes immediately, India has chosen to prioritize mature technologies in the 28-nanometer to 65-nanometer range. That would not be a retreat, but a strategic alignment with domestic capabilities, market demand and global supply chain gaps. The shift carries the imprimatur of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, indicating that the recalibration is