President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) Chairwoman Lai Shin-yuan (賴幸媛) have both said the government’s position and policies on cross-strait issues were not so different than those of the Democratic Progressive Party (DDP) and they couldn’t understand why DPP Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) thought the government has changed its policies. If Tsai saw this statement, she would probably feel upset but also find it amusing at the same time. For the pan-green camp, the real problem is the Ma administration’s lack of understanding. <>
After 12 years under the leadership of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and eight years under former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), Taiwan completed its democratic transformation and also developed a sense of a community of fate. Regardless of whether you prefer Taiwan or the Republic of China (ROC) as the nation’s title, both refer to the land and the people of Taiwan. Disputes over the future of Taiwan can be settled through democratic procedure.
However, the Ma administration’s complete disregard of Taiwan’s sovereignty has severely affected the public consensus on a community of fate. Thus, the Ma government has had no choice but to resort to the myth from the Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) era that the ROC includes both Taiwan and the mainland regions. As this does not fit in with the international reality and public sentiment, the pan-green camp has stated that this myth was not only a joke, but also a pack of insidious lies.
Because of its failure to understand the bond shared by a community of fate, the Ma administration’s position and reckless attitude in dealing with issues over Taiwan’s sovereignty have been astonishing.
Take the so-called “1992 consensus” and the concept of “one China with each side of the Taiwan Strait having its own interpretation” advocated by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) for example.
Considering Taiwan’s international restrictions and diverging domestic consensus, the KMT’s original intention was to safeguard the nation’s sovereignty and maintain cross-strait stability. However, as the concept of a community of fate was consolidated over the past 20 years, the public has become more intolerant of the aforementioned discourse and even sees it as a political tool.
The Ma administration has chosen to go against public opinion and has done everything it can to please the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). It has tried to meet Beijing’s definition of “one China,” with Ma’s talk of a “Taiwan region” being perfect proof of this. It has even attempted to hide or change such national symbols as the country’s flag and the title of president.
The government maintains that it has made these compromises to encourage cross-strait peace, cross-strait economic and trade benefits and to gain diplomatic breathing room for Taiwan.
From the perspective of a community of fate, however, if a nation compromises its own sovereignty, economic and trade benefits and diplomatic room are worthless.
These positions, attitudes and actions have made the public doubt the Ma administration.
For instance, the KMT must feel that it has put a lot of effort into the KMT-CCP forums and must have started to feel complacent that it had opened a new communication channel between high-level officials from Taiwan and China.
But if the DDP had dispatched its chairman to discuss the arms sale package with officials of the US Department of Defense during its time in office, how would the pan-blue camp have interpreted or criticized such a move?
The pan-green camp feels that the US has been a long-standing ally of Taiwan’s, while the CCP is Taiwan’s only possible threat.
From the perspective of a democracy, Ma’s recent actions can only be considered “under-the-table” operations.
In addition, the recent toxic milk powder debacle caused widespread public apprehension in Taiwan. Since the scandal came to light more than 50 days ago, the government has failed to apologize for the matter, organize negotiations with Beijing about compensation or establish a management mechanism to deal with tainted food from China.
The only concrete move the Ma administration made was to dispatch a group of experts to China to conduct a three-day inspection.
Under the pressure of the anti-government, anti-China rally on Oct. 25th, Ma criticized the response of Chinese businesspeople to public anger.
Can you imagine what would have happened if South Korean President Lee Myung-bak dealt with concern about tainted US beef imports using methods similar to the KMT? The KMT’s China-leaning attitude is absolutely ridiculous.
The Ma administration’s position, attitude and actions are clearly tilted toward Beijing. It has violated principles that a normal government of an independent country should observe. DPP supporters have lost trust in the government.
The Ma administration does not need to try to explain itself any further. What it needs to do is change its policies to respond to the public.
Lee Wen-chung is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
Following the BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, last month, media outlets circulated familiar narratives about Russia and China’s plans to dethrone the US dollar and build a BRICS-led global order. Each summit brings renewed buzz about a BRICS cross-border payment system designed to replace the SWIFT payment system, allowing members to trade without using US dollars. Articles often highlight the appeal of this concept to BRICS members — bypassing sanctions, reducing US dollar dependence and escaping US influence. They say that, if widely adopted, the US dollar could lose its global currency status. However, none of these articles provide
US president-elect Donald Trump earlier this year accused Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) of “stealing” the US chip business. He did so to have a favorable bargaining chip in negotiations with Taiwan. During his first term from 2017 to 2021, Trump demanded that European allies increase their military budgets — especially Germany, where US troops are stationed — and that Japan and South Korea share more of the costs for stationing US troops in their countries. He demanded that rich countries not simply enjoy the “protection” the US has provided since the end of World War II, while being stingy with
RSS