Ma plays innocent again
Retired general Hsia Ying-chou (夏瀛洲) has simply repeated what President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has said and done over the past four years concerning his cross-strait policy (“Ex-general repeats ‘one China’ remarks in China,” Feb. 11, page 1). If the Presidential Office does not approve of such comments, they should ask their boss to clarify his national policy first. Unless Ma’s “one China” policy, which considers Taiwan as part of China, is abandoned, disapproval of such comments is equivalent to disapproving Ma’s policy.
Ma should thank Hsia for saying, in military terms, that the armed forces in Taiwan and China share the same goal of unification. Instead, Ma has urged retired generals to act and talk with extra caution during their visits to China and called for the drafting of a “code of conduct” for retired generals. This code should also apply to the commander-in-chief.
After so many incidents, is Ma playing innocent and make-believe (more metaphorically, 假仙, in Taiwanese) again? Did he forget that “one China” and “eventual unification” are his own policies? His favorite topic, the so-called “1992 consensus,” is nothing but “one China, with different interpretations.” What Ma has done is only to make the description respectful to China, and not respectful to Taiwan.
Hsia has acted as a voluntary messenger for Ma’s policy. If a commander-in-chief gives a confusing order, the whole armed forces under his command will be at a loss — not knowing for whom, or for what, they are fighting.
Likewise, if a president sets an incorrect national policy, the president becomes an ordinary “mister” and the country becomes a “region” of another country. The people become second-class citizens without freedom. Taiwanese do not deserve to become second-class citizens again.
Charles Hong
Columbus, Ohio
Hsia should be disciplined
Several months ago, while back in the US, I was following my normal morning ritual of having coffee and reading the Taipei Times. That particular morning I almost gagged when I read the remarks by retired Air Force General Hsia. My first comments were: “How can a retired military man be making such remarks [the idea of one China] to the sworn enemy of his country? And now he does it again?”
I, too, am retired military, though from the US Army. There are some things I still hold sacred, and one of those is the oath I swore to many years ago, “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That never goes away. It concerns me that a retired military officer could even consider such a stance and that the current administration is, by not acting, condoning it.
It is also of concern that this administration has, on occasion, allowed or condoned the discussion of sensitive foreign policy, concerning “unification,” by non-governmental or retired persons.
I do not know how the military retirement system works in Taiwan, but in the US, a general officer is never truly retired. They are subject to recall at any time. It seems to me that an immediate recall and disciplinary action might just be in order.
Tom Kuleck
Greater Taichung
Double standards in play
Recently the media have been vocal about the abuse of a taxi driver by a “foreigner.” Your paper even used the word “shameful” in one sub-headline (“Makiyo, friend charged with assaulting driver,” Feb. 11, page 1). But when a “foreigner” was viciously assaulted by a gang last year, you editorialized the incident as “unfortunate.”
I’m happy to know this incident is treated as a crime — as it should be, but I’m unhappy to know there seems to be a chauvinistic double standard in Taiwan, where the “dignity” of Taiwanese is treated with more respect than the dignity of “foreigners.” This was evident in the media frenzy over a taekwondo incident a while back.
National Cheng Kung University illegally dismissed me 13 years ago. The case involved a high-ranked university and numerous human rights abuses, including the refusal to enforce a Ministry of Education ruling for nearly four years. Yet your paper has not exposed the case as “shameful” or editorialized about the dignity of Americans in Taiwan.
In your article, the protesters are quoted as shouting “We want dignity! We want the truth!”
What do you think I want? Is my “dignity,” or the “truth” of human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University of less merit or social import?
A taxi union official thanked the media for speaking on behalf of the victim and justice. I wish I could say as much.
I understand this case is different, because the victim was Taiwanese. It has lasted a few days, but a taxi official is quoted saying the case “had dragged on for so long.”
My case has lasted 13 years and your paper awaits “further developments,” as I was told last year. Apart from the establishment of a genuinely free and adversarial press, I have no idea what those “developments” could be.
Richard de Canio
Greater Tainan
The image was oddly quiet. No speeches, no flags, no dramatic announcements — just a Chinese cargo ship cutting through arctic ice and arriving in Britain in October. The Istanbul Bridge completed a journey that once existed only in theory, shaving weeks off traditional shipping routes. On paper, it was a story about efficiency. In strategic terms, it was about timing. Much like politics, arriving early matters. Especially when the route, the rules and the traffic are still undefined. For years, global politics has trained us to watch the loud moments: warships in the Taiwan Strait, sanctions announced at news conferences, leaders trading
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
The Executive Yuan and the Presidential Office on Monday announced that they would not countersign or promulgate the amendments to the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) passed by the Legislative Yuan — a first in the nation’s history and the ultimate measure the central government could take to counter what it called an unconstitutional legislation. Since taking office last year, the legislature — dominated by the opposition alliance of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party — has passed or proposed a slew of legislation that has stirred controversy and debate, such as extending
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators have twice blocked President William Lai’s (賴清德) special defense budget bill in the Procedure Committee, preventing it from entering discussion or review. Meanwhile, KMT Legislator Chen Yu-jen (陳玉珍) proposed amendments that would enable lawmakers to use budgets for their assistants at their own discretion — with no requirement for receipts, staff registers, upper or lower headcount limits, or usage restrictions — prompting protest from legislative assistants. After the new legislature convened in February, the KMT joined forces with the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and, leveraging their slim majority, introduced bills that undermine the Constitution, disrupt constitutional
RSS