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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS