The Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday lodged a “strong protest” with the Philippines over a ruling in its Court of Appeals which, citing the “one China” policy, upheld the Philippine Bureau of Immigration’s decision to deport 14 Taiwanese fraud suspects to China.
Aside from sending the protest via telegraph to Manila, Minister of Foreign Affairs Timothy Yang (楊進添) said he had on Monday told Philippine Representative to Taiwan Antonio Basilio that “the ruling was unacceptable to Taiwan,” warning that “we will not exclude any possible measures of protest.” So the foreign minister shows that he can talk tough. But how seriously does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government think the Philippine government will take Taiwan’s complaint in light of the previous objection lodged by the foreign ministry, which ended with Taiwan wimping out?
In February, the KMT government’s protest against Manila’s decision to deport the 14 suspects to China appeared stern in its demand of a formal apology from the Philippines. It also recalled Taiwan’s representative to Manila and imposed a four-month freeze on Philippine nationals coming to Taiwan to work. Just as Taiwan’s public was about to laud the administration under President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) for finally showing some backbone by sticking up for Taiwan’s dignity, however, the Ma government softened its stance. Following a visit by Philippine presidential envoy Manuel Roxas, who did not meet Taipei’s demand for an apology, the foreign ministry suggested that the punitive actions taken by the Philippine government against its officials involved in the deportation would be interpreted by Taipei as “a kind of apology,” hence putting a stop to the row with the Philippines.
Truly pathetic. Considering the way Taiwan’s demand for an apology ended then, how convincing is the Ma administration now when it expects the public to believe that it truly would uphold Taiwan’s authority and dignity with its latest so-called “stern protest”?
Addressing a group of foreign panelists at this year’s International Law Association Asia-Pacific Regional Conference in Taipei yesterday, Ma gave himself a pat on the back that his administration’s ostensible efforts to ease cross-strait tensions have helped expand Taiwan’s participation in international organizations, again trumpeting his principle of “mutual non--recognition of each other’s sovereignty and mutual non-denial of each other’s jurisdiction” with regard to China.
However, if Ma believes that his so-called “mutual non-denial” principle has helped Taiwan gain more breathing room in the international community, why is it that all Taiwanese see is repeated denials of the Republic of China (ROC)? From the recent disclosure of an internal WHO memo that affirmed its denigration of Taiwan’s status to a “province of China,” to the visa exemptions from Croatia and Slovenia — which, respectively, refer to Taiwan as “Taiwan, People’s Republic of China (PRC)” and place it under the category “China” along with Hong Kong and Macau — to the latest decision by the Philippines’ Court of Appeals upholding the “one China” principle in its ruling, seem like a series of affirmations recognizing the PRC. All the while, the Ma administration has dismissed the ROC’s sovereignty and dignity on the international stage.
Can Ma enlighten Taiwan’s public on how exactly his “mutual non-denial” principle plays out to Taiwan’s benefit? Thus far, it appears that Ma is living in a bubble of his own made up of naivety and a false sense of thawing cross-strait relations.
Taiwan’s fall would be “a disaster for American interests,” US President Donald Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday last week, as he warned of the “dramatic deterioration of military balance” in the western Pacific. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is indeed facing a unique and acute threat from the Chinese Communist Party’s rising military adventurism, which is why Taiwan has been bolstering its defenses. As US Senator Tom Cotton rightly pointed out in the same hearing, “[although] Taiwan’s defense spending is still inadequate ... [it] has been trending upwards
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS