Ma plays innocent again
Retired general Hsia Ying-chou (夏瀛洲) has simply repeated what President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has said and done over the past four years concerning his cross-strait policy (“Ex-general repeats ‘one China’ remarks in China,” Feb. 11, page 1). If the Presidential Office does not approve of such comments, they should ask their boss to clarify his national policy first. Unless Ma’s “one China” policy, which considers Taiwan as part of China, is abandoned, disapproval of such comments is equivalent to disapproving Ma’s policy.
Ma should thank Hsia for saying, in military terms, that the armed forces in Taiwan and China share the same goal of unification. Instead, Ma has urged retired generals to act and talk with extra caution during their visits to China and called for the drafting of a “code of conduct” for retired generals. This code should also apply to the commander-in-chief.
After so many incidents, is Ma playing innocent and make-believe (more metaphorically, 假仙, in Taiwanese) again? Did he forget that “one China” and “eventual unification” are his own policies? His favorite topic, the so-called “1992 consensus,” is nothing but “one China, with different interpretations.” What Ma has done is only to make the description respectful to China, and not respectful to Taiwan.
Hsia has acted as a voluntary messenger for Ma’s policy. If a commander-in-chief gives a confusing order, the whole armed forces under his command will be at a loss — not knowing for whom, or for what, they are fighting.
Likewise, if a president sets an incorrect national policy, the president becomes an ordinary “mister” and the country becomes a “region” of another country. The people become second-class citizens without freedom. Taiwanese do not deserve to become second-class citizens again.
Charles Hong
Columbus, Ohio
Hsia should be disciplined
Several months ago, while back in the US, I was following my normal morning ritual of having coffee and reading the Taipei Times. That particular morning I almost gagged when I read the remarks by retired Air Force General Hsia. My first comments were: “How can a retired military man be making such remarks [the idea of one China] to the sworn enemy of his country? And now he does it again?”
I, too, am retired military, though from the US Army. There are some things I still hold sacred, and one of those is the oath I swore to many years ago, “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That never goes away. It concerns me that a retired military officer could even consider such a stance and that the current administration is, by not acting, condoning it.
It is also of concern that this administration has, on occasion, allowed or condoned the discussion of sensitive foreign policy, concerning “unification,” by non-governmental or retired persons.
I do not know how the military retirement system works in Taiwan, but in the US, a general officer is never truly retired. They are subject to recall at any time. It seems to me that an immediate recall and disciplinary action might just be in order.
Tom Kuleck
Greater Taichung
Double standards in play
Recently the media have been vocal about the abuse of a taxi driver by a “foreigner.” Your paper even used the word “shameful” in one sub-headline (“Makiyo, friend charged with assaulting driver,” Feb. 11, page 1). But when a “foreigner” was viciously assaulted by a gang last year, you editorialized the incident as “unfortunate.”
I’m happy to know this incident is treated as a crime — as it should be, but I’m unhappy to know there seems to be a chauvinistic double standard in Taiwan, where the “dignity” of Taiwanese is treated with more respect than the dignity of “foreigners.” This was evident in the media frenzy over a taekwondo incident a while back.
National Cheng Kung University illegally dismissed me 13 years ago. The case involved a high-ranked university and numerous human rights abuses, including the refusal to enforce a Ministry of Education ruling for nearly four years. Yet your paper has not exposed the case as “shameful” or editorialized about the dignity of Americans in Taiwan.
In your article, the protesters are quoted as shouting “We want dignity! We want the truth!”
What do you think I want? Is my “dignity,” or the “truth” of human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University of less merit or social import?
A taxi union official thanked the media for speaking on behalf of the victim and justice. I wish I could say as much.
I understand this case is different, because the victim was Taiwanese. It has lasted a few days, but a taxi official is quoted saying the case “had dragged on for so long.”
My case has lasted 13 years and your paper awaits “further developments,” as I was told last year. Apart from the establishment of a genuinely free and adversarial press, I have no idea what those “developments” could be.
Richard de Canio
Greater Tainan
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