The perception of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) as a whiny leader who lacks guts in owning up to his political actions and who constantly makes excuses for his less-than-stellar performance appears to have been bolstered in the public’s eyes by remarks he made on Sunday.
During a visit to a propeller factory in Pingtung County, Ma, touching on the issue of the nation’s shipbuilding industry and indigenous-built submarines, said that although the US in 2001 agreed to sell subs to Taiwan, “the deal has been shelved for 14 years without any progress. We’ve come to the point where it is kind of getting hard [for us] to take.”
While the remark might make Ma sound totally innocent, suggesting that there is nothing he could do about the situation, the truth of the matter is that an irresponsible Ma was once again trying to evade blame.
In 2004, the Cabinet under the then-Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration, approved a NT$610.8 billion ($US18.6 billion at today’s exchange rate) special budget allocation for procuring arms from the US, with the Ministry of National Defense envisioning the purchase of eight diesel-electric submarines, 12 P-3C marine patrol aircraft and six Patriot PAC-3 anti-missile systems, which then-US president George W. Bush had promised to sell to Taipei in 2001.
While it might be a case of short-term memory loss for Ma, many in the public well recall that it was the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), under its then-chairman Ma, whose lawmakers constantly opposed the procurement of the submarines during the two terms of the DPP government.
During Ma’s chairmanship, KMT lawmakers boycotted the arms procurement effort more than 60 times, with then-KMT lawmaker Su Chi (蘇起) publishing an opinion piece calling “the country to devote itself to a defensive military, rather than an offensive military,” which he accused the DPP administration of trying to build.
After taking office in 2008, the Ma administration — in stark contrast to the estimated double-digit growth in China’s defense budget in recent years — put national defense spending on a downward trend so that it fell below his election promise of at least 3 percent of GDP.
According to data and reports from the National Development Council, in 2009, the first full year of Ma’s administration, the military budget was 3 percent of GDP, but dropped to 2.98 percent in 2010, to 2.69 percent in 2011, before rising marginally to 2.7 percent in 2012 and 2013, and then dropping again last year to 2.48 percent.
As the numbers clearly reflect a serious lack of credibility on Ma’s part, it is beyond comprehension that the president, rather than engaging in introspection, could keep his face straight as he tried to shift the blame on Sunday and “nagged” about the US not selling submarines to Taiwan.
Coupled with the defense ministry’s announcement yesterday that the voluntary military plan would be delayed until next year, it appears Ma’s failure to deliver on promises has become a bad joke, including his notorious “6-3-3” pledge during the 2008 campaign of achieving an annual GDP growth of 6 percent, an annual per capital income of US$30,000 and an unemployment rate of less than 3 percent.
It is unfortunate for the public that they elected a president who lacks gut in shouldering responsibility and appears incapable of achieving even a few of his pledges.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS