President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) returned to Taiwan late on Tuesday night after making an unexpected visit to Singapore earlier in the day to pay tribute to the late Singaporean prime minister Lee Kuan Yew (李光耀).
Given that Singapore does not have official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, it is understandable that the president wanted to keep his visit low-profile. However, to have the visit conducted in such a manner — to the point that almost everyone in the nation was kept in the dark that the president had gone overseas — and the fact that government officials called the trip “personal” in nature, did not change the universally known fact that Ma is the president of the Republic of China (ROC). In truth, the whole affair is sad and pathetic.
So much for Ma’s “flexible diplomacy” policy, which appears to have become a “private wake diplomacy.”
If, as Ma administration officials say, that “wherever the president goes, he is always the president,” and Ma’s own assertion upon arriving at Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport on Tuesday night that “wherever I go, it is impossible for me to do it in a private capacity,” why then was the government so ambiguous in the first place with responses to the question of Ma’s capacity while making the trip?
Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote: “If you want to be respected by others, the great thing is to respect yourself. Only by that, only by self-respect, will you compel others to respect you.”
The truth is, Ma, after his so-called “low-profile” trip, has not only downgraded himself from the head of the ROC, he has failed again to uphold Taiwan’s dignity. Furthermore, he also allowed China to take advantage of the whole situation, as made evident by remarks by China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson Fan Liqing (范麗青), who urged Singapore to observe the “one China” principle when dealing with Taiwanese paying tributes to Lee Kuan Yew, since Lee had always upheld the “one China” policy himself.
China’s statement also came as another slap in the face of Ma and the so-called “1992 consensus.” Ma has constructed his entire cross-strait policy on this fabricated “1992 consensus” by insisting there is this supposed tacit understanding between the KMT and Beijing that both sides acknowledge there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what China means.
The fact that Fan made it clear in the statement on Tuesday that China sees Ma as merely a “Taiwanese person” clearly indicates that China does not have the same interpretation as Ma — because such an interpretation would be tantamount to an acceptance of two Chinas, a situation that is completely unacceptable to Beijing.
An equally alarming notion resulting from Ma’s trip to Singapore is the fact that he has demonstrated to the Taiwanese public that he is capable of leaving the nation without letting the people know. Given the fact that Ma has several judicial cases pending against him, and that he is only currently protected under the umbrella of Article 52 of the Constitution — which stipulates that the president shall not be liable to criminal prosecution — many people cannot help but wonder whether Ma could, via the excuse of a “private trip,” abscond from Taiwan any time in a bid to evade judicial prosecution.
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