Armed forces need improved training

The news is awash with stories of regional tensions, with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) conducting military drills targeted at taking the Pratas Islands (Dongsha Islands, 東沙群島) in the South China Sea, the regular passage of US Navy vessels through the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea, China passing new national security legislation throwing Hong Kong into turmoil and the COVID-19 pandemic sending the global economy into a tailspin, among others. Meanwhile, Taiwan is dealing with incidents related to military discipline that have led to concerns over the preparedness of the military. In her inaugural address, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) on May 20 mentioned the importance of education and training within the military, and how her administration would focus on ensuring that leaders “foster a modern management system that emphasizes professionalism” so that the military would regain the respect of Taiwanese. In terms of military education and training, it is no small matter. The military has tended to gloss over the importance of education. Senior leaders at military academies generally only have their experience in the ranks to recommend them, with only a scant few having done any academic research or published any papers on military matters throughout their careers in the armed forces. The majority are strangers to academia. If the leaders within the hallowed halls of military academies have precious little academic background, there are bound to be problems with leadership principles and capability. This is different in Japan. The president of Japan’s National Defense Academy has a doctorate under his belt. As a professor, he is suitable to head an academic institution. If Japan can do this, surely Taiwan can do it, too. Another issue is the deeply subjective decisionmaking on which promotions within the armed forces are frequently based. Military personnel are often promoted for who

By Chang Yan-ting 張延廷

EDITORIAL CARTOON

EDITORIAL CARTOON

Blasting of Aboriginal site prompts calls to change laws

A 46,000-year-old Aboriginal heritage site destroyed by Rio Tinto last month is one of more than 463 sites that mining companies operating in Western Australia (WA) have applied for permission to destroy or disturb since 2010. None of those applications have been refused. Under the state’s 48-year-old Aboriginal heritage laws, only the land or lease holder has the right to appeal — traditional owners do not. The figures show that the shocking destruction of the sites in the Juukan Gorge in the western Pilbara was not unique. The conflict between mining companies and Aboriginal heritage, particularly in mineral-rich areas, such as the iron ore-rich Hamersley range of the Pilbara, has spawned a system of suffocating bureaucracy and lopsided agreement-making that privileges development over protecting sacred spaces and leaves traditional owners with no legislative power, and very little institutional power, to fight back. The Juukan one and two sites are listed on WA’s Aboriginal heritage register as Brock-20 and Brock-21. They sit a short distance apart in Juukan Gorge, about 60km from the mining town of Tom Price, on the edge of the multibillion-dollar Brockman 4 iron-ore mine. Juukan two is one of the only sites on the Pilbara to show continual human occupation through the last ice age, and archeological records, including bone pits that catalogued changing fauna, dated back 46,000 years. The sites were drilled and set with explosives last month. Traditional owners the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura (PKKP) peoples do not yet know the full extent of the damage. The operation had been discussed at meetings with Rio Tinto over a number of years, but Burchell Hayes, one of the directors of PKKP Aboriginal Corp, said the meetings often conveyed technical information, which PKKP elders found hard to interpret. The “blunt details” that would have helped them understand exactly what was being proposed, and

By Calla Wahlquist

Trump leaves room to defuse China tensions

US President Donald Trump’s long-touted response to China for its crackdown on Hong Kong included a barrage of criticism, but stopped short of fully escalating tensions between the two nations. While the US president’s speech on Friday last week was heated in rhetoric, it lacked specifics around measures that would directly impact Beijing. He announced that the US would begin the process of stripping some of Hong Kong’s privileged trade status, without detailing how quickly any changes would take effect and how many exemptions would apply. The US president also promised sanctions against Chinese and Hong Kong officials “directly or indirectly involved” in eroding Hong Kong’s autonomy, but did not identify individuals. The Trump administration has not yet decided under what authority it would implement that action, said a person familiar with a matter, who declined to be named, because the deliberations are private. “Our actions will be strong. Our actions will be meaningful,” Trump said in the White House Rose Garden. The US president said that the US would terminate its relationship with the WHO, which Trump has accused of being too deferential to China and of failing to provide accurate information about the spread of the novel coronavirus. He also said he would limit visas for certain Chinese students. Both those moves are tangential to China’s escalations in Hong Kong and do not strike at Beijing to the degree that some in markets had feared last week. For instance, there was no unraveling of the “phase one” trade deal signed between the world’s two biggest economies in January. Trump repeated a list of his grievances with China and punted tougher policy measures that his administration had discussed, including financial sanctions. His remarks also did not include mention of legislation passed by the US Congress last week that could sanction Chinese government officials over the

By Jenny Leonard, Josh Wingrove and Justin Sink

EDITORIAL: Aboriginal names still disrespected

Executive Yuan spokesperson Kolas Yotaka has been using the Romanized version of her Aboriginal name for at least 10 years — but some Taiwanese apparently find it offensive. Kolas on Friday last week had to respond to a note in the Presidential Office’s suggestion box asking her to use her “Chinese name,” which just shows how far the nation has yet to go to fully embrace its diversity and become an inclusive society. Some people seem to forget that Aborigines are just as Taiwanese as the nation’s Han majority. The note asked Kolas to stop using her “English” Aboriginal name — which is a misnomer, as Roman script is used for transliteration of most languages around the world, including Taiwan’s numerous Aboriginal languages and even Hoklo (also known as Taiwanese) at times. The incident was as an opportunity for the government to remind the public to respect one another’s cultures, as only education can combat ignorance and discrimination. The Presidential Office handled the letter quite gracefully, with spokesman Alex Huang (黃重諺) sending a handwritten letter to the person who filed it. Aside from saying that Kolas’ name is completely legal, Huang wrote: “Like Han Chinese naming customs, Aboriginal names come from a rich cultural heritage, and are also the greatest blessings from their parents and family. I suggest that you learn more about the issue so you can better understand your fellow citizens. Let’s be proud together of Taiwan’s beautiful diversity.” It could not have been better said — and kudos to the government for showing class in handling the issue. It should be basic knowledge to every Taiwanese that Aborigines were forced to use Chinese names (after being forced to adopt Japanese names by the previous colonizers) when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) arrived. While it made sense for the nation’s Han

For a golden decade, cut PRC ties

I would really rather not use the expression “golden decade,” because it has been sullied by former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who said that with the signing of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement with China, Taiwan would experience a golden decade, but reality proved that to be a matter of political trickery. In the end, I still decided to use this expression here, because looking at the global economy today, Taiwan has a good chance of experiencing a golden decade in the next 20 years. I believe that the global economic situation is becoming increasingly favorable to Taiwan. First, with the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, China bared its fangs and angered the world, setting off the US-China trade and tech disputes. One opinion poll showed that 90 percent of Americans perceived China as a threat to the US. Second, in the war of words over the “Wuhan pneumonia,” Beijing’s unreasonable and irrational behavior has set off a wave of strong dislike of China. Third, the spread of the pandemic has exposed the limitations of globalization and sparked an anti-globalization sentiment. The reorganization of the global supply chain will pick up speed once the pandemic is over, and this will emphasize Taiwan’s role within the global supply chain. Fourth, the US presidential election in November. Regardless of who wins, the strong dislike of China means that the next president will increase pressure on Beijing, and that a second round of US-China trade talks will be intense. The animosity between the US and China is beneficial to Taiwan, because it will deter Taiwanese from investing in China and detract from the Chinese beneficial policies aimed at Taiwan. The problem is that Taiwan itself is not working hard enough. Those with a pro-Beijing position that leans toward economic integration with China continue to make up the mainstream in

By Huang Tien-lin 黃天麟

Investing in nursing and healthcare

As a representative of the Taiwan Nurses Association, a long-time member of the International Council of Nurses (ICN), I attended the World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva, Switzerland, on May 18 and 19 as an ICN representative. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the meeting was held virtually through videoconferencing, with a special focus on pandemic response measures, and results reported and shared by the WHO, its member states and non-state actors, such as the ICN. Compared with past assemblies that normally lasted for six days, this year’s meeting was held in a very rushed manner. As it was the first time the meeting was held via videoconferencing, the WHO showed an apparent lack of management and efficiency, while member states were thrown into confusion by technical issues, such as communication and translation problems. Having said that, this was the first WHA I have attended where I felt “the sense of pride in our country” that President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) mentioned in her May 20 inaugural address. During the assembly, Taiwan was explicitly mentioned in the speeches delivered by the US, Japan, Malta and many of the nation’s diplomatic allies, calling for the WHO to include Taiwan. Palauan Minister of Health Emais Roberts said emotionally: “Taiwan was the first country to lend Palau a helping hand” after the outbreak. Palau now has all the equipment, supplies and training it needs to fight COVID-19 thanks to “the simple act of kindness and solidarity from Taiwan and many other member states in this meeting,” he added. During the Adoption of the Agenda session on the first day, the WHA also discussed the proposal “Inviting Taiwan to participate in the World Health Assembly as an observer,” which was submitted by the nation’s 14 diplomatic allies — to the General Committee for consideration. This contradicts a statement by the New

By Chen Ching-min 陳靜敏

Han recall a vote against Beijing’s influence

China’s National People’s Congress on Thursday last week approved a plan to draw up legislation governing national security enforcement in Hong Kong. The legislation is likely to be implemented in Hong Kong soon after it is enacted, which could happen as early as August. This development signals the death of the “one country, two systems” formula in Hong Kong, and it demonstrates the fraudulent nature of China’s 1997 pledge to Hong Kongers and the UK that the territory’s capitalist system and lifestyle would not change for 50 years. RUBBER STAMP In the future, the Hong Kong Legislative Council (LegCo) will be just a rubber stamp. If the government in Beijing deems it to be necessary, the People’s Congress could amend Hong Kong’s Basic Law, even without consulting the LegCo. China’s law enforcement agencies — the Public Security Bureau and People’s Armed Police — and intelligence agencies could arrest Hong Kongers on the grounds of national security. This would seriously threaten the security of pan-democratic candidates in September’s LegCo election. Even if they are elected, they might be framed and indicted on bogus national security charges, and disqualified from LegCo membership. Does anyone in Taiwan still believe that the Chinese communist regime respects the terms of its agreements? Does anyone still want to sign a peace treaty with communist China? Hong Kong can only show Taiwan once and only die once, and then it will be no more. How can those living in Taiwan not be wary? Despite all of this, there exists in Taiwan a gaggle of politicians who tirelessly revel in the “Chinese dream” of “great unification.” They see themselves as “superior Chinese” and do not conceal their admiration for the Chinese regime. The foremost representative of these politicians is Kaohsiung Mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜): A Google image search for 韓國瑜+中聯辦 — the Chinese characters

By Vincent Chen 陳建志

EDITORIAL CARTOON

EDITORIAL CARTOON

‘A national crisis’: How the killing of George Floyd is changing the US

Riots in Minneapolis and across the US triggered by video footage showing George Floyd, a black man, killed under the knee of a police officer, has caused a dramatic shift in the national political debate in America and thrust race to the center of the stage. US President Donald Trump and former US vice president Joe Biden offered divergent responses that point to an even more divisive political debate on race relations, and between Democrats and Republicans playing out in the months ahead. The president, in a tweet in the early hours of Friday, warned that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Later on Friday, Biden, the presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee, in a video address called for national unity and serious police reform, saying: “This is no time for incendiary tweets. This is no time to encourage violence. This is a national crisis, and we need real leadership right now.” Shortly afterward at a separate press conference in the Rose Garden where the president seemed poised to follow up and further address Floyd’s death and the riots, Trump instead announced that the US would withdraw from the WHO. He did not mention the riots or Floyd’s death. Meanwhile, Biden revealed he had already spoken to Floyd’s grieving family, and spoke emotionally of the shock at his killing and society’s racial problems. “We’re a country with an open wound. None of us any longer can hear the words ‘I can’t breathe’ and do nothing,” he said. The wildly different responses by the two men battling for the White House under the ongoing cloud of the COVID-19 pandemic has left party leaders unsure of what exactly the final months of the presidential election will now look like. However, leaders and strategists agree on one thing: The months ahead are likely to be a bareknuckle brawl over what

The rot in Australian media is already advanced

The Northern Age was founded in Townsville in the 1890s — there are conflicting reports of the precise date — in what was still the Colony of Queensland. It was moved to Ingham, just north of Townsville, then the smaller neighboring town of Halifax, changing its name to the Planter, and perhaps the Northern Planter, before returning to Ingham for good. From 1904 until Wednesday last week, through world wars, depressions and four Foley Shield championships for the Herbert River Tigers, it was published as the Herbert River Express. Now its current owner, News Corp, has shuttered it for good, along with 111 other community and regional newspapers. The masthead will disappear and its coverage will be folded into the Townsville Bulletin’s Web site. No longer a newspaper, the Express will not even have its own URL. Ingham and the surrounding region will no longer have a newsroom of its own. There is something to say about media ownership regulations that allow so much civic and cultural heritage to be entrusted to a single, profit-driven entity. However, even if News Corp was not always the best custodian of local newspapers, owners can change, unless capacity is lost. News Corp is not alone in closing papers. Australia is not alone in wondering what to do when local news disappears and entire communities are left without newsrooms. We need to understand how advanced the rot already is in Australia, and how much damage has been wrought this year alone. The Public Interest Journalism Institute tracks Australian newsroom closures in its Australian Newsroom Mapping Project. Its latest data, due to be published next week, paint an ugly picture. Dozens of newspapers have vanished or been seriously diminished this year so far, institute research and projects manager Gary Dickson said. In an e-mail Dickson said that nine mastheads have merged into other

By Jason Wilson

EDITORIAL: Refugee act would help define nation

Mainland Affairs Council Minister Chen Ming-tong (陳明通) on Thursday said that the government had received asylum applications from at least 200 Hong Kongers as Beijing seeks to ram through a national security bill for the territory. President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has said that there is no need to introduce refugee legislation to offer Hong Kongers asylum, while Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) has said the Act Governing Relations With Hong Kong and Macau (香港澳門關係條例) does not need to be amended to deal with such requests. However, refugee bills sponsored by Democratic Progressive Party lawmakers have languished for 15 years, while the Hong Kong and Macau law lacks regulations regarding asylum. Article 18 of the act, which officials have cited as the legal basis for offering Hong Kongers asylum, only states that the council may provide Hong Kong residents whose safety and freedom have been threatened due to political reasons with assistance if necessary, without specifying the conditions that applicants must meet. This could lead to problems when the council and the National Immigration Agency review an applicant’s background. For example, could asylum be granted to an applicant with a criminal record, or must they have no criminal record going back 12 months from the date of application? If the latter were the case, it would defeat the purpose of offering asylum for political reasons, as they could have been charged as dissidents by the Hong Kong government. The political leanings of asylum seekers should also be reviewed to sift out those who have engaged in rhetoric or actions in support of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This might sound politically incorrect, but with the government grappling with national and social security threats posed by groups that promote unification, the last thing Taiwan needs is more CCP supporters who could erode national security. Given that wealthy Hong Kongers are

HK’s moment of truth; and China’s

For decades before the coronavirus emerged from Wuhan and exploded in the rest of the world, China has been waging a cold war against the US and the West on a number of fronts: trade and economics, intellectual property, Taiwan’s democratic security, maritime freedoms in the South and East China seas, proliferation, cybersecurity and human rights. It has supported North Korea and Iran, and sided with every rogue regime seeking to undermine the West and challenge the global order and its moral underpinnings. On virtually every international norm, Beijing has been aggressively on the wrong side of history. The failure of past US administrations to confront the communist regime for the sake of expected reforms through engagement has only whetted its appetite for further advances against Western interests. However, the administration of US President Donald Trump emphatically declared an end to the one-sided relations and was beginning to make progress on curtailing China’s exploitation in the trade area with its “phase 1” agreement. The eruption of the coronavirus pandemic stopped that progress in its tracks while destabilizing the global economy and much of the international social order. The outbreak’s origin and the dubious circumstances of China’s handling of it have aroused suspicions that even if its beginnings were purely accidental and innocuous, its spread to the outside world was clearly avoidable and therefore plausibly intentional. Countries in Asia, Europe, Africa and Latin America — which had allowed themselves to be seduced by the lure of lucrative economic arrangements with Beijing through the Belt and Road Initiative — were already beginning to have second thoughts about China’s intentions. Its gross mishandling of the pandemic — and worse, its sinister exploitation of it — have alarm bells sounding even louder. Beijing has now chosen the situation in Hong Kong as the focus of its confrontation with global

By Joseph Bosco

Hong Kong at risk of a repeat of Tiananmen

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to wreak havoc worldwide. Despite countries being under pressure economically and from the novel coronavirus, China’s National People’s Congress last month passed national security legislation for Hong Kong, a decision that has shocked the world. Let there be no doubt: This move is the beginning of the end of China’s plans for “one country, two systems” in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Proposed amendments to extradition laws last year ignited massive protests in Hong Kong, with millions of participants, shocking the world and making confrontation between government forces and those who opposed the change a permanent part of Hong Kong society. This year’s legislation might breathe new life into the unrest in the territory. Hong Kongers’ fury last year moved from the proposed extradition rules to China’s “one country, two systems” governance model. At first glance, former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s (鄧小平) promise that “horse racing and dancing would continue” seemed to guarantee Hong Kong’s freedom, but in practice, the “one country, two systems” model has removed any chance of it beating its own path. “One country, two systems” means no universal suffrage and huge income disparity, which limit the territory’s future. Last year, Hong Kong’s democracy camp won landslide victories in district council elections, gaining almost 90 percent of the 452 district council seats in a display by voters of their dissatisfaction with “one country, two systems” and the absence of universal suffrage, as well as their hatred of China. All the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) had to do to relieve Hong Kongers’ thirst for democracy and remove the source of the turmoil was to provide a real possibility for political development. Unfortunately, the CCP has all along turned against the public, failed to recognize their demands and diminished their protests by calling them a plot to overturn the government in collusion with foreign

By Hsiao Hsu-hsing 蕭徐行

[ LETTER ]

Protecting domestic workers Ms Heidi Chang’s (張姮燕) article (“Employers need protections too,” May 24, page 6) made the case that “migrant workers’” rights had improved in Taiwan, but employers’ rights had not, going so far as to complain that all employers are treated equally under the law — as though this was not how the law was supposed to work. The truth is that the rights of foreign blue-collar workers have still not caught up with the rights their employers have always enjoyed. This segment of the foreign community in Taiwan is more likely than other groups to encounter abuse. Recently, a care worker from the Philippines was threatened with deportation by her employer and brokerage agency for criticizing Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. Recall the Indonesian care worker who was repeatedly raped by her employer, was ignored by her broker and attempted suicide. The law in Taiwan allows employers who are convicted of abusing domestic workers — including rapists — to hire a new domestic worker, who is likely to be female and highly likely to become a new victim, after the first offense. They are only barred from hiring after multiple offenses. Instead of asking what employers’ rights are, ask this: Why is one rape not enough to bar them from ever hiring a home care worker again? Workers in the fishing industry are often subjected to horrific conditions, including beatings, having their documents withheld, or outright slavery. Even though such treatment is illegal, it is difficult for fishing boat workers to seek help. This abuse is rampant and has resulted in deaths. Taiwanese employers are the focus of more complaints by Indonesian fishers than any other country. Employers are legally able to pay foreign employees well below the minimum wage, and domestic workers are still not covered under the Labor Standards Act (勞動基準法). It is relatively

EDITORIAL CARTOON

EDITORIAL CARTOON

Europe reaches a tipping point on China

Europe’s relations with China are going from bad to worse. Beijing’s decision to force national security laws on Hong Kong has outraged many in the EU for what they see as an attack on democracy. It places EU governments on the horns of a dilemma over how to respond as they shift from battling the COVID-19 pandemic to economic recovery, where trade with China is likely to play a big part. That is set to leave Europe somewhere in the middle as the US weighs a range of penalties on China for encroaching further on Hong Kong’s freedoms. EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell said that sanctions were not the solution “to our problems with China.” The bloc’s foreign ministers instead voiced “grave concern” at China’s moves in a joint statement issued after they met by video conference on Friday. Yet European anger is palpable, and there are signs that China’s moves could have ramifications further down the line, by speeding European efforts to adopt a more unified industrial policy and influencing decisions on the role of Huawei Technologies Co in 5G networks. A post-pandemic rescue plan presented by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron on May 18 aims to fortify Europe internally, but also contains measures to equip it to better face outside threats. Meanwhile, diplomacy is at a low ebb, with China provoking European governments through aggressive social media posts over their handling of the pandemic, and some European officials criticizing Beijing in turn for its early response to the outbreak. While preparations officially continue for the first-ever summit of the EU’s 27 leaders and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) this fall, China watchers from academia to industry say they doubt that the event billed as the highlight of a year of China-Europe engagement

By Alan Crawford, Ania Nussbaum, and Arne Delfs