In an interview of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) with the Chinese-language newspaper the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister publication), Ma appears concerned over accusations that he is selling out Taiwan, and repeatedly denies that any of the pacts with China are harmful to Taiwan’s sovereignty.
The more harmful parts of the cross-strait agreements erode Taiwan’s national sovereignty, while the less harmful parts destroy the interests of the Taiwanese public at large. This is true of all these agreements.
For example, in violation of international practice, talks about direct cross-strait flights have not included fifth freedom rights — the right to operate connecting flights — thus designating such flights as domestic. According to international treaties such as the Convention on International Civil Aviation and the Convention on the High Seas, aircraft and ships have nationalities and should be treated as an extension of national territory. They must fly their national flag. But do aircraft and ships traveling across the Taiwan Strait currently fly their national flag? And worse, the Ma administration is cooperating with China in treating Taiwan as a local government by banning foreign aircraft and ships from operating cross-strait services. These measures are all aimed at defining cross-strait air and shipping lanes as domestic. I want to ask Ma if this harms our national sovereignty, and if this is evidence that all criticism of the government for selling out Taiwan is “empty.”
Furthermore, when it comes to the issue of submitting cross-strait agreements to the legislature for review, Ma goes even further in distorting facts when he says that “according to the Rules Governing the Processing of Treaties and Agreements (條約及協定處理準則), the Cabinet only has to submit [such agreements] that it has passed to the legislature for its reference.”
In reality, Article 7 of these rules states that, “The competent authorities shall consult with related committees of the Legislative Yuan on general guidelines and principles before reaching an agreement on the text of a treaty.”
Article 3 of these rules also clearly defines “treaties” as “international written agreements ... the contents of which directly involve issues of national interest and are legally binding; and the contents of which directly involve people’s rights and obligations, and are legally binding” while defining “agreements” as “international written agreements other than treaties ... whatever their particular designations or how they are formulated.”
To date, Taiwan and China have signed 12 agreements, none of which has been submitted for legislative review. Could it really be that these agreements are not issues of national interest, that they are not legally binding, and that they do not directly involve people’s rights and obligations? Not only have they not been submitted for legislative review, Ma also clearly violates rules by not consulting the relevant legislative committees. Despite talking so much nonsense, he still dares quote the rules. Has he not read them, or is he simply lying to our faces?
A final point: Ma says that, “signing an [economic cooperation framework agreement] ECFA with China … is a necessary condition [for signing free trade agreements with other countries].”
This is simply nonsense. Ma should provide evidence of which countries won’t sign a free trade agreement with Taiwan simply because we do not have an ECFA with China. What countries set such conditions? When the nation’s president makes such baseless and illogical statements, it is not so strange that the public would lose confidence in him.
Huang Kun-huei is chairman of the Taiwan Solidarity Union.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS