The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) has released a statement rejecting comments by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has been rushing into the relaxation of cross-strait policies and that the lack of clear accompanying measures to handle problems this could cause represent an unprecedented threat to Taiwan’s sovereignty.
The MAC said the majority of relaxed cross-strait policies promoted by the government had been promoted by the DPP government, and are in line with what the public wants and beneficial to Taiwan’s economic development.
Direct cross-strait charter flights and allowing a greater number of Chinese tourists to visit Taiwan are policies promulgated by the former government. However, Beijing chose to ignore them so that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) could use them during his electoral campaign. In order to make these changes a reality, however, Beijing had to sacrifice agreements on chartered cargo flights negotiated with the DPP administration. In addition, the list of eight Chinese travel agencies monopolizing the market for visiting Taiwan had nothing to do with the DPP.
We can only thank the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party for this “development.”
Other relaxations also vary in principle with those promoted by the DPP government. The biggest difference is that the DPP never agreed to abandon the title “president.” Ma, however, has made a decision that may make dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son, president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), turn in their graves. Nor did the DPP administration ever recognize the so-called “1992 consensus.”
For its part, the KMT government does not even have the courage to mention “one China, with each side having its own interpretation.”
To facilitate direct flights, some local KMT government officials have disregarded national and personal dignity and openly rebuked Taiwan during their visits to China. When the KMT chairman and other senior party officials went to China, they were too afraid to uphold Taiwan’s sovereignty. On the other hand, DPP member and Yunlin County Commissioner Su Chih-fen (蘇治芬) said at the opening of Yunlin’s liaison office in Beijing that Taiwan and China were two separate countries. Based on this, it should not be too difficult to determine who cares more about Taiwan’s dignity.
Although the DPP administration also advocated relaxing restrictions on Taiwanese investment in China, Ma has gone overboard and removed the 40 percent cap on investment. He has also failed to explain the logic behind allowing Taiwanese businesses to set up factories using 12-inch wafer technology in China.
The DPP government refused to allow the Olympic torch onto Taiwanese soil on the grounds that Beijing insists on changing Taiwan’s Olympic title from “Chinese Taipei” to “Taipei, China” and because Beijing is constantly attacking Taiwan’s sovereignty. Before his election, Ma said he would consider boycotting the Olympics over China’s treatment of Tibet. However, two months later, his government was unable to provide a strong response to Beijing changing Taiwan’s name from “Chinese Taipei” to “Taipei, China,” with only the MAC vice chairperson speaking out.
Why did Ma step up when it came to allowing Chinese officials to address him as “Mr,” only to take a backseat when it comes to safeguarding Taiwan’s sovereignty?
While the DPP government strongly opposed recognizing academic qualifications from China, Ma has been heavily in favor. He also wants to allow Chinese students to study in Taiwan. No clear policies to deal with those moves have been proposed, leaving the government agencies that would have to deal with the ramifications scratching their head.
Caution will be in order when Chinese investors are allowed onto the Taiwanese stock market. The TAIEX has plummeted in recent months and Ma’s attempts at reviving it have been in vain. It was only when the stock exchange announced it would look into insider trading that the market finally stopped falling.
Political analyst Wang Kung-yi (王崑義) wrote on his blog: “Last week, I went to Hangzhou to take part in a large symposium organized by the Taiwan Affairs Office. Some people at the meeting who work for Taiwan-related departments told me that certain members of the KMT have told them the KMT will push Taiwan’s stock market down to 5,500 points so that Ma will be forced to reshuffle his Cabinet and get the members they want in office.”
Absent new policies, interest groups could very well control Taiwan’s stock market and countless Taiwanese could be bankrupted if the stock market is buffeted by Chinese and KMT insider trading.
It is high time Taiwanese realized the severity of the crisis we are facing.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in Taiwan.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Within Taiwan’s education system exists a long-standing and deep-rooted culture of falsification. In the past month, a large number of “ghost signatures” — signatures using the names of deceased people — appeared on recall petitions submitted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) against Democratic Progressive Party legislators Rosalia Wu (吳思瑤) and Wu Pei-yi (吳沛憶). An investigation revealed a high degree of overlap between the deceased signatories and the KMT’s membership roster. It also showed that documents had been forged. However, that culture of cheating and fabrication did not just appear out of thin air — it is linked to the
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
China’s partnership with Pakistan has long served as a key instrument in Beijing’s efforts to unsettle India. While official narratives frame the two nations’ alliance as one of economic cooperation and regional stability, the underlying strategy suggests a deliberate attempt to check India’s rise through military, economic and diplomatic maneuvering. China’s growing influence in Pakistan is deeply intertwined with its own global ambitions. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship project of the Belt and Road Initiative, offers China direct access to the Arabian Sea, bypassing potentially vulnerable trade routes. For Pakistan, these investments provide critical infrastructure, yet they also
RSS