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.
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS