As the Chen Shui-bian (
The significance of the refusal of both Liu Hsia (
Apparently, Chen's "new middle path" -- which some critics have described as an unrealistic attempt to make virtually everyone happy -- is not any easy path to follow or offer constructive advice about. Should anyone be surprised? A close look at the list of 150 national policy and presidential advisors reveals just exactly how many worlds apart they really are. Chen ought to know by now that the harder one tries to please everyone, the more likely he or she will end up displeasing everyone.
Is there still a need for such advisors? The main purpose for these posts has been either to reward supporters or demonstrate political correctness. How many of advisors have really had the chance to advise the president anyway? Liu says she got to see the president just once a month -- at a large formal meeting during which all the advisors listen to a speech from the president and then politely clapped their hands.
So why continue the pretense? Surely the money paid out to all these advisors who don't advise could be put to much better uses. The DPP used to criticize the KMT for having such a patronage system, so why not abolish it now? If the president needs policy opinions and consultations, task-oriented and non-permanent advisory panels could be put together instead.
Chang had already made clear his differences with the government, particularly on the issue of "direct links." However, there is an another element in his decision to widen the distance between himself and the Chen administration, and that is the pressure Beijing has been putting on Taiwanese businesspeople who invest in China. Beijing has made it clear it will not tolerate Taiwanese who make their fortunes in China and yet support Taiwan independence at home. Beijing certainly isn't going to be friendly to the administration's supporters. Such an attitude creates serious problems for businesspeople investing in China, where the rule of law has is arbitrary. To protect their investments, business leaders, such as Formosa Group Chairman Wang Yung-ching (
The Chen government has a multitude of problems to deal with. It has proven itself to be in sore need of good advice as well. However, an outmoded system of advisors that no one ever listens to anyway is not the way to deal with the complex problems facing the nation. Let's streamline the government a little more and drop the advisors.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS