Did The Associated Press (AP) really misquote President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in its exclusive interview with him on Tuesday?
That’s what the Presidential Office said, with Ma calling an impromptu press conference on Tuesday night to argue the case. Ma said that in the interview, he did not link cross-strait political talks to a second term if he were to be re-elected, nor did he set China’s implementation of democracy and respect for human rights as a precondition for Taiwan’s unification with China.
Anyone who cares to take a look at the interview transcript can come to their own opinion on whether AP put words in Ma’s mouth, or merely made a reasonable deduction based on Ma’s remarks.
While Ma sought to correct the section of the interview in which AP quoted him as saying “any political union would require Beijing to adopt democracy and respect for human rights,” a closer look at the transcript has many people wondering where exactly he was misquoted and whether it warrants a correction.
In the transcript Ma responded to AP’s query that “I think what I heard you say was that a truly democratic system of government in the mainland is the only way that the Taiwanese people will engage in a conversation about unification” by saying: “I think that will help.”
Even though Ma added that “there’s no guarantee how long it would take for the people of Taiwan to believe it’s time to do so” and cited opinion polls showing that a majority of Taiwanese favor the status quo, it is nonetheless beyond belief that he would take the liberty to suggest that Taiwanese would want unification with China were Beijing to embrace democracy and respect for human rights.
Whatever happened to Ma’s campaign pledge on respecting the right of Taiwanese to determine their own future? In a growing trend, polls conducted by National Chengchi University’s Election Study Center have shown that more people in Taiwan identify themselves as Taiwanese (52 percent as of June), compared with those who consider themselves Chinese (3.8 percent as of June).
Ma also said he did not in the interview connect cross-strait political talks with a second term.
A closer look at the transcript, however, clearly shows Ma responding to an AP question — “if economic issues are resolved during your second term, during that term, you might move on to political questions?” — by saying: “As I said, it depends on how fast we move, whether these issues are satisfactorily resolved.”
It is therefore reasonable for the AP to quote Ma as having “suggested that those political talks could start as early as a second four-year term if he wins re-election in 2012.”
On Tuesday night, Ma stressed that what he said was that “the government would not start political talks with China before it completed negotiations on economic issues.”
However, that very statement rings a horrifying tune to the ears of many. After all, at what point will the Ma government determine that economic issues have been resolved? Has the cross-strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) signed in June borne fruit for Taiwan or improved Taiwan’s economy? What about the trade imbalance between China and Taiwan?
Neither the legislature nor Taiwanese voters have authorized Ma to represent the country in moving on to political talks should economic issues be taken care of in his first term.
In view of Ma’s latest comments — regardless of what corrections he seeks to make after the fact — one can’t help but feel pessimism regarding the future of Taiwan under his China-friendly governance.
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