One should be wary of governments that tell the public that everything is fine and under control all the time. And yet, this is exactly the dish President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration has been serving the public since it came into office in 2008.
Just as with ordinary human beings, people who claim to be right all the time, or who deny even the possibility that something may have gone wrong, reveal one of two things about themselves: Either they’re lying, or they have lost touch with reality. It’s hard to tell which is worse, but the one thing that’s certain is that danger cannot but lurk far behind.
On almost every controversy — the poor handling of the Typhoon Morakot incident, bird flu outbreaks, a dangerous China policy, the theft by the state of private property, delays in the implementation of the second-generation national health insurance program, delays in phasing out conscription in the armed forces, disproportionate police deployments, the US beef flap and recent frictions with Singapore and Sao Tome and Principe to name a few — the Ma government has shot back at critics by saying that everything is fine and that the public should have faith in its ability to manage. The closest it has come to admitting deficiencies in governance was to slap low to mid-level government officials on the wrist, a reprimand that is usually followed by the official being moved to another branch of government or the warm embrace of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
In the rare instances where the government actually found fault with its handling of various policies, top officials invariably pointed to delays in the legislature and deficiencies in the law, rather than what on some occasions was outright injustice perpetrated by the state against individuals. By doing so, the government exonerated itself of all moral responsibility and instead blamed a faceless system, as if it, too, were somehow a victim, before promising amendments that, in the abstract, will make everything all right.
In similar vein, Minister of the Interior Lee Hong-yuan (李鴻源) late last month, following the destruction of two houses owned by the Wang (王) family in Taipei’s Shilin District (士林), could not go beyond uttering that there were “some elements of injustice involved in the urban renewal project” that led to the outrage. What Lee seems to have failed to realize is that injustice either is or isn’t — there is no in--between. This is reminiscent of a US official during the Rwandan genocide in 1994 saying that “acts of genocide,” as opposed to genocide, were being committed. Ridicule aside, the official’s comments were part of then-US president Bill Clinton’s policy that argued against intervening in the country, where close to 1 million people were being massacred. In other words, this was phraseology making the case for inaction.
Taiwanese get the same kind of language from the military on a constant basis. China modernizes its military, conducts maneuvers around Taiwan, spies on its air defense systems and continues to add missiles targeting it, and yet, aside from refusing to comment on specifics, the Taiwanse military tells the public that — yes, everything is under control.
The problem with this fantasy world is that it can only work for so long. Eventually, reality will catch up with the rhetoric, and the boat captain who keeps telling passengers that the Titanic is not sinking will, like those he has been deceiving, risk his skin by remaining in his cabin.
If it truly cares about its legacy as a government for the people, the Ma administration should have the courage to admit its failures and to fix the fundamentals, rather than continue pretending that everything is fine and under control.
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has over the past few months continued to escalate its hegemonic rhetoric and increase its incursions into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone. The US, in turn, has finally realized how its “strategic ambiguity” is increasingly wearing thin. Similarly, any hopes the US had that the PRC would be a responsible stakeholder and economic player have diminished, if not been abandoned. Taiwan, of course, remains as the same de facto independent, democratic nation that the PRC covets. As a result, the US needs to reconsider not only the amount, but also the type of arms
Taking advantage of my Taipei Times editors’ forbearance, I thought I would go with a change of pace by offering a few observations on an interesting nature topic, the many varieties of snakes in Taiwan. I will be drawing on my experiences living in Taiwan five times, from my teenage years in Kaohsiung back in the early sixties, to my last assignment as American Institute in Taiwan Director in 2006-9. Taiwan, with its semitropical climate, is a perfect setting for serpents. Indeed, one might say serpents are an integral part of the island’s ecosystem. Taiwan is warm, humid, with lots of
China constantly seeks out ways to complain about perceived slights and provocations as pretexts for its own aggressive behavior. It is both victimization paranoia and a form of information warfare that keeps the West on the defensive. True to form, China objected even to the innocuous reference to Taiwan at April 16’s summit meeting between US President Joe Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga. Neither leader’s prepared remarks even mentioned Taiwan, out of deference to the Japanese side. Biden’s opening statement was modest: “Prime Minister Suga and I affirmed our ironclad support for US-Japanese alliance and for our shared security.
Determined to keep a permanent grip on power, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has abandoned former paramount leader Deng Xiaoping’s (鄧小平) dogma of “hiding our capacities and biding our time” along with the “peaceful development” line that prevailed under former Chinese presidents Jiang Zemin (江澤民) and Hu Jintao (胡錦濤). Instead, he is treading a “wolf warrior” path of diplomacy that resorts to coercion, debt entrapment and hostage-taking. Externally, Xi’s China has claimed that it would never seek hegemony, yet it challenges the free, rules-based international order wherever it can. While insisting that it will not export its ideology, it has