In 1987, before former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) enacted a policy allowing retired soldiers to return to China to visit relatives, former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) secretary-general Lee Huan (李煥) sought out Robert Lai (賴義雄), a member of the dangwai (outside the party) movement, who was in Taipei at the time, for his opinion on the proposed policy.
Lai said that based on humanitarian principles, retired soldiers should be allowed to return to China to visit their relatives. The next day, a headline in a prominent “anti-communist” newspaper reported that an overseas dissident supported the policy.
It is quite obvious why the KMT decided to use endorsement of the policy by a well-known “dissident” as a selling point. However, this little vignette also highlights an important point: Even if Chiang was an unelected authoritarian ruler, he still wanted Taiwanese to trust him and worried that the policy would increase suspicions that he was selling out Taiwan.
Although President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), a former secretary to Chiang, talks about “no unification and no independence,” he holds his father’s dying words to “eventually unify” Taiwan with China close to his heart. He also accepts Beijing’s “one China” policy and treats the status of Taiwan as an internal Chinese affair as he struggles to improve cross-strait relations within the framework of the Chinese Civil War.
Ma received a Western education, but he ignores the fact that democracy is about responding to public opinion. He is a second-generation Mainlander, but he ignores the fact that Taiwanese are worried that a “foreign” elite is selling out Taiwan and blatantly disregards how his opinions tie Taiwan, over which Beijing does not have sovereignty, to China.
Some commentators have accused Ma of narcissism, stubbornness, shamelessness and arrogance to the point of his being ignorant and insensitive. Now that he is seeking re-election, Ma is dropping Vice President Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) in favor of a new running mate, Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), because he thinks Wu has “a good way with words” and is full of “understanding and compassion for the public.”
Understanding people is nothing but the innate character of a kind person — it is not as rare as Ma might believe; indeed the streets are full of people who care for one another.
In addition, “having a good way with words” should mean the ability to communicate honestly with the public. However, Wu’s true talent lies in putting on a sincere face while avoiding difficult questions with cunning, downplaying serious issues, blaming everything on the pan-green camp, shirking responsibility and talking about policies in a way that the average person cannot comprehend, as was the case with his “grassroots economy.” These traits have not unreasonably given him a reputation for being a liar.
Ma has read the four Confucian classics, so he should know that Wu’s “way with words” is something Confucius disliked, as can be seen in the expression: “People fond of sweet talk or rhetoric are seldom benevolent or helpful.”
How can such a person be full of “understanding and compassion for the public”?
Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), who was begged to stay on in his position, was quoted in an angry tone as saying that the pairing of Ma and Wu for the upcoming elections would be a “good mix.” Stubborn ignorance and insensitivity mixed with sweet talk and rhetoric are indeed a match made in heaven.
James Wang is a commentator based in Taipei.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama. This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent