When a natural disaster strikes, an analogy is often drawn between a government’s disaster relief efforts and that of its military going to battle. By this analogy, the government lost the battle of Typhoon Morakot.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), as commander-in-chief, must shoulder responsibility.
Ma’s performance was so poor that Beijing and the People’s Liberation Army, which no doubt are scrutinizing his actions in the face of crisis, must be slapping themselves on the back. Never could they have imagined that Ma would be such a poor leader. They must feel that Taiwan would succumb easily to an invasion.
“I exercise strong leadership,” Ma said on Tuesday at a press conference when asked by reporters how he viewed his performance since the typhoon struck on Aug. 8.
A quick glance at poll results published by the media yesterday reveals Ma’s plunging approval rate and the public’s dissatisfaction with the government’s rescue and relief efforts. There is a huge gap between the president’s definition of “strong leadership” and the public’s appraisal.
If the government’s performance in the wake of Morakot is Ma’s idea of “strong leadership,” the public should be very concerned about the government’s capabilities.
Defending his response, Ma said bad weather was the main reason for the delay in the government’s rescue efforts, preventing it from airlifting trapped villagers.
The safety of rescue teams must be taken into consideration, but Ma could have ordered the military to launch other rescue efforts rather than waiting three days.
Surely Ma does not mean to imply that the military cannot handle bad weather. If so, he may have to beg China not to invade during a typhoon.
Within hours of the 921 Earthquake on Sept. 21, 1999, a directive was issued to all military personnel, warning that whoever failed in disaster relief would be dealt with according to military law.
The directive demonstrated the commander-in-chief’s determination and recognized the seriousness of the situation, setting an example that carried over to the troops.
This time around, military personnel were forced to wait for orders, although many soldiers were anxious to get to the disaster zone and help the victims of flooding and mudslides.
A leader’s attitude is important and sets the tone for his subordinates. If a commander seems unconcerned about rescue efforts, what is to be expected of those under him?
It should come as no surprise, then, that Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) got a hair-cut and Executive Yuan Secretary-General Hsueh Hsiang-chuan (薛香川) was out dining on haute cuisine while the south faced the onslaught of Morakot.
“A competent leader can get efficient service from poor troops, while on the contrary an incapable leader can demoralize the best of troops,” late US brigadier general John Pershing once said — words that Ma should treat as counsel.
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Media said that several pan-blue figures — among them former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), former KMT legislator Lee De-wei (李德維), former KMT Central Committee member Vincent Hsu (徐正文), New Party Chairman Wu Cheng-tien (吳成典), former New Party legislator Chou chuan (周荃) and New Party Deputy Secretary-General You Chih-pin (游智彬) — yesterday attended the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) military parade commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. China’s Xinhua news agency reported that foreign leaders were present alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean leader Kim
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) is expected to be summoned by the Taipei City Police Department after a rally in Taipei on Saturday last week resulted in injuries to eight police officers. The Ministry of the Interior on Sunday said that police had collected evidence of obstruction of public officials and coercion by an estimated 1,000 “disorderly” demonstrators. The rally — led by Huang to mark one year since a raid by Taipei prosecutors on then-TPP chairman and former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) — might have contravened the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法), as the organizers had
RSS