A government requires public trust. This becomes obvious if we look at the latest opinion poll following President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) taking on the role of chairman of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
More than 50 percent of respondents thought it was unlikely that the KMT would be able to eliminate “black gold” politics and be seen as a clean and uncorrupt party. This shows that bad habits die hard. A case in point is the recent revoking of the election of two KMT Central Standing Committee members for bribing party delegates to win their seats. Cash and a vast array of gifts changed hands.
In an interview at the Presidential Office with Reuters on Oct. 19, Ma said he would not rule out meeting Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤). His stance won the approval of 43.9 percent of respondents of the recent poll, while 36.5 percent opposed it. This shows Ma must increase public trust in his cross-strait policies if a “Ma-Hu” meeting is to have any significance and to push ahead with an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China.
Ma’s approval ratings plummeted in the wake of Typhoon Morakot, which caused the worst floods in 50 years. We should not forget that he won last year’s election mainly because of his promises to clamp down on corruption and ease strained cross-strait relations.
Since Ma took power, however, the administration’s ineffective anti-corruption efforts have angered the public. The “sunshine bills” have been watered down, and three months after Ma vowed to fight corruption, a report is all that has been produced. Even the promise to return the KMT’s stolen assets to the national coffers when taking over the chairmanship turned out to be a symbolic statement. His attempts to restore party discipline have only caused widespread agitation. Since Ma’s “6-3-3” election promise of 6 percent annual economic growth, US$30,000 in per capita income by 2012 and a 3 percent unemployment rate fell through, unemployment has remained high.
A recent survey by Hong Kong-based HR Business Solutions shows that employers in the Asia-Pacific region plan to raise salaries over the next two years, but pay increases in Taiwan will only be 2.5 percent, fifth from the end among the 19 polled economies.
It also seems cross-strait relations have moved too fast. Even international media outlets have questioned whether Ma’s cross-strait policies lean too much toward China. US commentator Philip Bowring said in the Oct. 6 edition of the New York Times that: “Taiwan’s position as a de facto independent state seems to be morphing very slowly toward the ‘one country, two systems’ status of Hong Kong.”
Xu Bodong (徐博東), director of the Taiwan Research Institute at Peking University, said that “Beijing had high hopes for Ma, but so far, disappointments outweigh hope.”
Ma’s attempt to push through the signing of an ECFA has run into public opposition and it is being boycotted by the opposition. The root cause of this problem lies in the lack of public trust. The details of the proposed pact remain opaque, and it is evident it would have an adverse impact on Taiwan’s industry.
An ECFA assessment report released by the government is not convincing. Newspapers have reported that Beijing’s Ministry of Commerce estimates that China would benefit four times more than Taiwan from an ECFA as its GDP would increase by 0.63 percent — more than US$27 billion — under tariff concessions.
On the other hand, a study conducted by the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research in Taiwan estimates that an ECFA would increase this country’s GDP by 1.72 percent — only US$6.9 billion. If there are complementary measures to create a win-win situation, have these been clearly explained?
The main reason Ma’s cross-strait policy has stalled is not Beijing’s united front tactics, but Ma’s failure to build credibility within his party. Taiwan has witnessed two transfers of power, and both have proved that access to political resources will not buy public support. Sovereignty still rests with the people.
Although improving cross-strait relations is important, it is not as important as gaining public trust and improving living standards.
Lu I-ming is the former publisher and president of Taiwan Shin Sheng Daily News.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
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