Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) came out with the latest in a long line of twisted policy ideas on Sunday during a visit to Taipei Port.
If one is to believe Ma, then the nation can further relax cross-strait restrictions, allow most of its high-tech and manufacturing operations to relocate to China and somehow increase the amount of container ships leaving the nation's ports.
As always with Ma, there was no substance to go with the sound bite.
But most startling of all is that, time and again, Ma is allowed to come out with such obviously contradictory statements without anybody challenging him.
Just last week, for example, he panned the government for its "rigid dogmatism" on foreign policy and for "inflexibly using the name Taiwan" to apply for WHO and UN membership — organizations that require full statehood as a condition for entry.
Ma's response: Taiwan should use its economic strength to apply for membership of the IMF and World Bank, also organizations that require full statehood.
His suggestion comes at a time when China's relentless pressure means Taiwan is having trouble just staying in organizations as obscure as the World Organization for Animal Health.
No doubt Ma believes that applying for membership to international bodies using the name "Republic of China" (ROC) — while claiming that the ROC is the "real" China, as he did in the US last year — is altogether more viable and less “rigid.”
Ma also recently reiterated his wishy-washy foreign policy and diplomacy ideas when he said he would demand China remove missiles targeting the nation before Taipei and Beijing could resume negotiations or reach a peace accord, adding that Taiwan and China should regard “freedom” and “democracy” as foundation stones for cross-strait dialogue.
As if the bullies in Beijing — who famously turned their guns on their own citizens just 18 years ago — are really going to bow to the demands of a nation that cannot even keep its own military arsenal up to date.
In case Ma wasn’t aware, “freedom” and “democracy” are words that don’t hold much currency in Zhongnanhai.
With demands like that on the table, don’t expect substantial cross-strait dialogue to resume anytime soon should he become president. If Ma sticks to his guns, then the so-called “peace accord” that is central to his cross-strait policy platform would appear to be dead in the water.
Ma left for India and Singapore yesterday, no doubt to once again espouse his paradoxical policy platforms on the international stage — where he knows they will not receive any serious scrutiny.
While in Singapore he will probably laud its government for turning the city-state into an economic success, while overlooking the authoritarian system it used to obtain its achievements, as he did in advance of his visit in an interview with the Straits Times last week. But then, no one should be surprised by a KMT figure extolling the virtues of authoritarianism.
It’s about time his opponents started taking Ma to task over these absurd declarations, because as we saw with his ridiculous dance on “independence being an option” and on the BBC’s Hardtalk last year, Ma’s poise is shielding him from accountability.
The public seem to have trouble penetrating the reflective veneer so carefully created by Ma’s well-crafted photo ops and sanitized interviews.
But if they really tried to look behind the Ma facade, they would discover the biggest contradiction of all: Ma is a “leader” with very few leadership qualities at all.
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