If anyone ever had lingering doubts about Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) abilities as a Harvard-trained lawyer, they were almost certainly put to rest during his recent interview with the BBC's Hardtalk television program.
Ma's legalistic ability to disarm his opponents through obfuscation and equivocation, as well as his obdurate refusal to commit to answering difficult questions were on full display. Despite host Stephen Sackur's tried-and-tested ability to rhetorically manhandle namby-pamby politicos like the Taipei mayor, Ma made a Herculean effort and avoided giving straight answers to simple questions.
Almost the only question to which Ma could give a direct answer was the very first of the interview:
"Does China pose a threat to Taiwan?" Sackur asked.
"Yes," was the only reply Ma could muster, as though he'd been taken off guard by the novelty of the idea. After that, he quickly regained his footing.
"How grave a threat?" was Sackur's response.
"Uh ... depends on the type of ... uh ... situation you are talking about," Ma blathered, launching into a verbose exchange about China's missiles and military maneuvers.
Naturally, this led into tougher questions about why the KMT was blocking the arms procurement deal with the US. Ma regurgitated the well-worn lines about supporting "reasonable" arms purchases. What he did not do, and what the KMT has never been able to do, is explain how, exactly, it intends to ensure that Taiwan is able to defend itself.
What weapons systems should Taiwan invest in? What military programs should be focused on? What is the most effective way to ensure that Taiwan's people have the ability to determine their own future in the face of China's threat?
If you're hoping for answers to these questions, don't look to Ma.
Still, the spectacle of Ma squirming under Sackur's grilling provided some comic relief. Watching Ma attempt to justify former KMT chairman Lien Chan's (
Indeed, if there is a ghost that has been doggedly haunting Ma ever since he took the reins of the KMT, it is the ghost of Lien and the party's ossified Cold-War era policies. The only defense Ma could muster, after some impressive oratorical contortions, was some drivel about the need for direct cross-strait flights.
Things got so uncomfortable for Ma that he eventually broke into an outburst that bordered on racial chauvinism to prevent Sackur from embarrassing him. The trouble came after Sackur tried to nail down Ma's position on unification.
"You don't actually believe in an independent, sovereign Taiwan in the future, do you? You actually believe in one China and unification," Sackur said.
"No, no, no. You don't understand what these terms mean. You're not very much familiar with Chinese affairs and Taiwanese affairs," Ma told the host, as if Sackur -- a veteran journalist with a team of researchers supporting him -- had not just spent the past 20 minutes asking him detailed, probing questions about almost every important issue in Taiwan's affairs.
Needless to say, Ma dodged the question, and blithely ignored Sackur when he pointed out the contradictory comments Ma had made about the topic.
Nevertheless, Ma did offer one very instructive insight during the interview:
"Only the people in power could sell out Taiwan," he said midway through the show.
This is an interesting point. And it is one that voters should bear in mind in 2008.
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