1. Taiwan ruling party suspends legislative speaker,
risking internal divide
The Washington Post / Associated Press, September 11,
TAIPEI,
Taiwan — The disciplinary panel of Taiwan’s ruling party suspended the speaker
of the legislature Wednesday, a move that could fracture the party and threaten
its efforts to develop closer ties with China.
Wang
Jin-pyng was suspended for allegedly pressuring prosecutors not to appeal the
acquittal of an opposition lawmaker. That removes him from the party for a
year, after which he can apply for reinstatement.
Wang
contends he did nothing improper. He has held the legislative speakership, one
of Taiwan’s most powerful positions, since 1999, and is known for having
relatively good relations with the opposition. Though he and President Ma
Ying-jeou both belong to the Nationalist Party, the two have been bitter
rivals.
The
fast-moving political drama could threaten the unity of the party, which under
Ma has lowered tensions between Taiwan and China to their lowest level since
the two sides split amid civil war 64 years ago.
Ma pressed
hard for Wang’s ouster, calling his alleged action “the most serious
infringement in the history of Taiwan’s judiciary.” But in doing so, he has
drawn criticism not only from the opposition, but also from many Nationalists
who see his pursuit of Wang as a personal vendetta.
A
Nationalist split would improve the prospects of the China-wary opposition in
the 2016 elections. Ma is currently among the most unpopular presidents in
Taiwan history, with an approval rating of just 15 percent.
The drama
began Friday, when the Special Investigation Division of the Prosecutor’s
Office announced it had evidence that Wang and former Justice Minister Tseng
Yung-fu had colluded to pressure prosecutors not to appeal the acquittal of
opposition lawmaker Ker Chien-ming, a friend of Wang’s, on breach of trust
charges. Tseng resigned later that same day under heavy pressure from Ma, but
insists he did nothing wrong.
The SID’s
evidence was gathered from a wiretap on Ker’s cell phone, leading to opposition
charges — echoed by some Nationalists — that the agency abused its power. The
SID says its wiretap was legal.
Ma then
unleashed a barrage of criticism at Wang. The two have a long history of
animosity, dating back at least to 2008, when they competed for the Nationalist
presidential nomination. Wang recently upbraided Ma for his handling of
government and the economy.
Wang’s
suspension by the Nationalist committee on Wednesday effectively strips him of
the legislative speakership and even his legislative seat, because he was selected
in the last legislative election not by popular vote, but as an at-large
Nationalist candidate.
At 72, the
diminutive Wang still maintains a number of credible political options,
including establishing a breakoff party of his own, though Wang said Tuesday he
was not interested in such a move.
With Wang
removed from the legislative speakership, Taiwan’s often fractious legislature
can be expected to become more fractious still, largely because of his strong
channels of communication with the opposition.
It was not
clear who the next speaker will be. One of that lawmaker’s first big tests will
be to try to win legislative approval of a bilateral services agreement in
China. The opposition says the legislation would give China too much control of
the Taiwanese economy.
Despite
Wang’s own Nationalist pedigree, and the heavy Nationalist majority in the
legislature, Wang did little as speaker to press for the approval the pact
needs to enter into force.
2.
Taiwan’s president, ruling party
hit by scandal, rifts, anger over wiretapping
Recent allegations of influence peddling by Taiwanese politicians, driven in part by investigators’ wiretaps of one lawmaker’s cellphone conversations, have stirred fear and paranoia among some political leaders.
“I’m sorry. It’s not safe to talk right now. We are being monitored,” said a political adviser within the Nationalist Party, whose leaders have both driven the investigation and been the ones most damaged by it.
Taiwan’s justice minister has been forced out, and its high-
profile legislative speaker has been expelled by his party.
The fallout could have sweeping consequences for Taiwanese politics, weakening the already unpopular administration of President Ma Ying-jeou and giving a boost to the opposition party, which is much less friendly toward mainland China.
The dominoes began falling when Taiwan’s high court overturned lawmaker Ker Chien-ming’s guilty verdict on embezzlement charges.
A special investigative unit within the Taiwanese Justice Department subsequently wiretapped Ker’s cellphone, and, according to prosecutors, recorded conversations in which legislative speaker Wang Jin-pyng and Justice Minister Tseng Yung-fu agreed to help Ker ensure that the overturned ruling stuck.
Both Wang and Tseng have denied the charges of meddling, but Tseng has since stepped down, and Wang’s party membership was revoked Wednesday. Wang has vowed to fight his expulsion to keep his legislative position.
At the heart of the growing rift is a long-simmering rivalry within the Nationalist Party between Ma, its chairman, and Wang, a party heavyweight who has held the speakership since 1999. Their rivalry dates to 2005, when both competed to lead the Nationalist Party, also called the Kuomintang. They butted heads again in 2008, competing for their party’s presidential nomination.
This week, Ma called Wang’s alleged meddling in the court case “the most serious infringement in the history of Taiwan’s judiciary.”
Under Ma, Taiwan’s often-fractious relationship with China has hit its calmest point in decades. But Ma has taken a beating in opinion polls and has one of the lowest approval ratings among Taiwanese president. One recent poll has his rating at 11 percent.
The use of wiretapping has angered critics, who say the administration overstepped the constitution to pursue Ma’s politically motivated desire to oust Wang.
Ma’s party has also seen serious erosion in public support as the economy has struggled. And the justice minister’s ouster is at least the fifth cabinet-level resignation this year. The others included a defense minister who left over criticism of an army trainee’s death, a replacement defense minister who left over plagiarism and a premier who resigned partly over the economy.
The expulsion of Wang, who held significant sway in the parliament, could create further roadblocks for Ma’s policy goals, including getting approval for a service-trade agreement with China. Some in Taiwan have opposed the agreement over fears that the island is already too economically tied to the mainland. Wang also had good ties with Taiwan’s opposition party, which has criticized Ma for his handling of the investigation and referred to the wiretapping scandal as “Taiwan’s Watergate.”
3. A Plea for Caution From Russia
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
The
New York Times September 11,
2013
MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have
prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political
leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication
between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through
different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were
also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international
organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such
devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations’ founders understood that
decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with
America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined
in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the
stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the
fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage.
This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take
military action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States
against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major
political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more
innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond
Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of
terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian
nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize
the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of
international law and order out of balance.
---------------
From the outset, Russia has
advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for
their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but
international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and
believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is
one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos.
The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not.
Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by
the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the
United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in
Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army,
but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign
patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants
are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in
internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United
States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the
world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying
solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re
either with us or against us.”
But force has proved ineffective and
pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after
international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq
the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States,
many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would
want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how
sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the
elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot
count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your
security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass
destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We
are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality
this is being eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and
return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action
has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of
the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s
willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for
subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees
this as an alternative to military action.
4. Taking a bite out of Apple
Xiaomi,
often described as China’s answer to Apple, is actually quite different
The Economist Sep 14th 2013
IT
FEELS more like a rock concert than a press conference as the casually dressed
chief executive takes to a darkened stage to unveil his firm’s sleek new
smartphone to an adoring crowd. Yet this was not the launch of the new iPhone
by Apple on September 10th, but of the Mi-3 handset by Xiaomi, a Chinese firm,
in Beijing on September 5th. With its emphasis on snazzy design, glitzy
launches and the cult-like fervour it inspires in its users, no wonder Xiaomi
is often compared to its giant American rival, both by admirers and by critics
who call it a copycat. Xiaomi’s boss, Lei Jun (pictured), even wears jeans and
a black shirt, Steve Jobs-style. Is Xiaomi really China’s answer to Apple?
Yet “we have never compared ourselves to
Apple—we are more like Amazon,” says Lin Bin, Xiaomi’s co-founder, who once
worked for the Chinese arms of Microsoft and Google. Apple sells its iPhone 5
for around $860 in China and has the industry’s highest margins. Xiaomi offers
its handsets at or near cost: the Mi-3, its new flagship, costs 2,000 yuan
($330). Xiaomi sells direct to customers online, rather than via network
operators or retail stores, which also keeps prices down. Crucially, its
business depends on selling services to its users, just as Amazon provides its
Kindle readers at low prices and makes its money on the sale of e-books. The
idea is to make a profit from customers as they use the handset, rather than
from the sale of the hardware, says Mr Lin.
Xiaomi’s services revenues were 20m yuan in
August, up from 10m yuan in April. It is a classic internet business model:
build an audience then monetise it later, as Google and Facebook did, notes Mr
Lin. Selling games, custom wallpapers and virtual gifts may not sound very
lucrative, but China’s internet giants have found a huge market for virtual
goods: the biggest, Tencent, sold $5 billion-worth of them last year.
Another
big difference is their openness to user feedback. Apple takes an almost
Stalinist approach to its handsets, limiting user customisation in favour of a
“we know best” design philosophy. Xiaomi is more guided by its users, releasing
a new version of its MIUI software (based on Google’s Android operating system)
every week in response to their suggestions. In some cases Xiaomi asks users to
vote via weibo, the Chinese
equivalent of Twitter, on whether particular features should be included or how
they should work—a form of democracy its American rival would never
countenance.
沒有留言:
張貼留言