After being in office for 100 days, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) policies have come under criticism, with tens of thousands of dissatisfied people taking to the streets in protest. During a recent interview with the Mexican daily Sol de Mexico, Ma admitted that the realization of his “6-3-3” economic goals would be delayed to the final year of a second term as president. We would have to wait until 2016 to see Ma’s promise of an annual economic growth rate of 6 percent, an annual GDP per capita of US$30,000 and an annual unemployment rate of less than 3 percent fulfilled.
This means not only that the promise that “everything will be OK as soon as Ma is elected” was a lie. It also means the subsequent promise that things were “gradually getting better” was another lie. Even worse, we might have to put up with these lies for eight years if Ma manages to get re-elected in 2012.
By saying that his campaign promises would take eight years to be realized, Ma has not only refused to accept that he was wrong and apologize to the public, he has treated those who voted for him like fools.
As president, Ma should of course deliver on his promises. If he cannot, then he should apologize. This is the only responsible thing to do. However, Ma has been unwilling to take any substantial action because he has been too excited about his victory and too busy savoring the sweet taste of power. All he has done since taking office is to say nice things and rule with words alone. After 100 days in office, Ma has done nothing for the country and has no way of explaining himself.
Ma won with 58 percent of the vote. The fact that his approval rating has dropped to 27 percent within 100 days shows that he should apologize to the public for several things.
Just what is wrong with Ma and his government? The main problem is the failure to deliver on his “6-3-3” pledge. First, Ma did not want to admit his lack of political and administrative skills; he tried blaming international factors. Soaring oil and commodity prices and the US subprime loan crisis were problems before Ma took office. However, while former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was still in office during the first quarter of the year, the economic growth rate was 6.25 percent. Why did it drop to 4.3 percent after Ma took over? Why did Taiwan’s economic competitiveness weaken so drastically after the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) returned to power?
Second, Ma owes investors in Taiwan’s stock markets an apology. During his campaign and afterwards, Ma pretended to be a savior and tried to drum up confidence by talking about how much the markets were going to grow by and the tens of billions of dollars Chinese tourists would bring into Taiwan each year. Ma managed to cheat many voters with these promises. Rational investors, however, know that such promises are false, as the stock market is a direct reflection of the economy and its fundamentals. The stock market is not something that can be controlled by political posturing. Therefore, the slogan “The stock market will be fine as soon as Ma is elected” was political trickery, aimed at fooling small investors.
Voting and the stock market are different — politicians may gain some votes for knowing how to bluff, but no matter what anybody does, the market will always change eventually to reveal its fundamentals.
When people are tricked into voting for a certain candidate, they will live with their choice or join protests if they feel they backed the wrong person. However, when people invest unwisely, they could very well lose everything.
After Ma’s inauguration on May 20, Taiwan’s stock market plumbed new depths and numerous investors have suffered great losses. This has had a huge impact on both consumers and the economy. If 100 days in office has sent Taiwan’s economy into recession, how can Ma’s government be so thick-skinned as to dodge responsibility and refuse to apologize to the public.
Ma’s administration has done nothing to promote economic growth or control prices. It has focused primarily on moving away promoting sovereignty, nationhood and a Taiwanese consciousness. This has already started to eat away at Taiwan’s sovereignty and is slowly turning Taiwan into a part of China. The administration has pushed many questionable policies, including the diplomatic “truce” with Beijing, cancelation of military procurement and a willingness to use the denigrating term “Chinese Taipei.”
Those who do not understand the situation may say Ma is doing these things for peace and because he does not want a conflict with China. However, all these actions are part of an overall unification strategy.
In his interview with Sol de Mexico, Ma made it clear that the relationship between Taiwan and China is not one between two countries or “two Chinas,” but a special cross-strait relationship. He insisted that the so-called “1992 consensus” be used as a basis for solving cross-strait issues. With such voluntary castration, what future and chance of survival can we expect?
Regardless of what Ma calls his policies, they all amount to an inability to revive the economy, restricting Taiwan diplomatically, leaning toward China, surrendering militarily and belittling Taiwanese sovereignty. In short, Ma’s real goal is to hand Taiwan over to China.
The public will have a tough time making it through four years of this impotent and weak government’s rule. Do we really want to give Ma a second term in office so he can be even more destructive?
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS