Just as the former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration’s incompetence and constant fawning over China prompted waves of mass protests during former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) eight years in office, the public’s collective wish for a better future was what propelled the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to power in January.
It was not the DPP’s merits alone that saw Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) elected as president, but also public indignation over the KMT’s China-leaning policies, ill-conceived proposals, and poor administration and execution. Voters were hoping that a change in government would improve the nation, with a shift in attitude toward cross-strait affairs and policies that better address concerns over social justice and national competitiveness.
Yet, in the nearly three months of her presidency, the Tsai administration’s performance has been disappointing, if not far from public expectations.
Yes, the Legislative Yuan, in which the DPP holds a majority, has accomplished the decade-long quest of passing the Act Governing the Handling of Ill-gotten Properties by Political Parties and Their Affiliate Organizations (政黨及其附隨組織不當取得財產處理條例), a laudable first step toward addressing transitional justice. How the executive branch implements the act remains to be seen, however.
Putting that aside, a greater concern has been the manner in which Tsai is making personnel appointments.
First was her nomination of Public Functionary Disciplinary Sanction Commission Chief Commissioner Hsieh Wen-ting (謝文定) and Judicial Yuan Secretary-General Lin Chin-fang (林錦芳) as Judicial Yuan president and vice president respectively. Although Hsieh and Lin on Sunday withdrew their nominations with Tsai’s consent, that Tsai even thought of naming people with such a controversial past — with one purportedly linked to human rights violations during the KMT’s authoritarian rule — is incomprehensible.
Tsai’s judgement on personnel appointments has not only raised doubts over her claims to defend democratic values, but also sparked indignation among people who had pinned their hopes on her administration redressing miscarriages of justice during the White Terror era.
The withdrawal of the nomination, which was met with harsh public criticism and a lukewarm reception even among DPP lawmakers, demonstrated just how big the gap is between the Tsai administration and public expectations.
Another example that calls into question Tsai’s judgement is the appointment of former Council for Economic Planning and Development chairman Chen Tain-jy (陳添枝) as minister of the National Development Council.
Chen was best known for his ardent push for the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) with China during Ma’s presidency. His appointment to a position that handles the nation’s development and economic competitiveness policies, in addition to Tsai’s recruitment of other former KMT, pro-ECFA government officials into the new government’s “new southbound policy” program, has many questioning Tsai’s beliefs and judgement, and wondering whether she has had a change of heart since coming to power.
A poll released by Taiwan Indicators Survey Research yesterday showed that Tsai’s approval rating has dipped below 50 percent, while her disapproval rating has risen from 32.3 percent last month to 39.8 percent.
While some might argue that it is natural for a leader to suffer a dip in support after the so-called “honeymoon” period, Tsai should be reminded that “public opinion is like flowing water” — if she does not keep the water flowing, her detachment from mainstream public opinion will see her pounded by a wave of public dissatisfaction just as powerful as the one that swept her into office in the first place.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s