Even though President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is to step down in less than a month, he still appears to be stuck in “la-la land,” feeling content with his governance and record with no sign he is aware of how Taiwanese really feel or mainstream public opinion.
Ma’s apparent delusional state is evidenced by his comments in a recent interview with the Straits Times from Singapore.
First, Ma urged Taiwanese not to think of the deportation of Taiwanese from Kenya to China as an issue of sovereignty. Even more shocking was that Ma, the man elected to assert this nation’s dignity and sovereignty, casually dismissed the deportations as “a problem stemming from division of labor.”
The Kenyan incident obviously hurt Taiwan’s sovereignty: Beijing breached human rights and the Cross-Strait Joint Crime-Fighting and Judicial Mutual Assistance Agreement (海峽兩岸共同打擊犯罪及司法互助協議) by forcibly removing Taiwanese from Kenya.
Many Taiwanese reacted with indignation to what amounts to extrajudicial abduction, yet Ma did not utter a single word of condemnation or protest in the interview, just a few words of regret.
He also maintained the fiction that Taiwanese support his China policies as he touted the fictitious “1992 consensus” as the crucial element to the cross-strait “status quo.”
Patting himself on the back, Ma said that it was because of his adherence to the so-called consensus that Taiwan was able to achieve its goal of representation at the WHO when it recived an invitation to the World Health Assembly (WHA) in 2009.
“There is no way the status quo can be maintained without the consensus,” Ma said — a statement many saw as a message to president-elect Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) of the Democratic Progressive Party.
In response to a question about polls that show a growing number of Taiwanese are opposed to unification with China and how this might affect his successors’ adherence to the Constitution, Ma said the interviewer might “have some misunderstanding regarding Taiwan’s public opinion.”
Ma said that China’s reduced saber-rattling efforts ahead of elections in Taiwan was China “showing greater respect for a democratic society” and acting “in line with the expectations of a democratic society.”
Asked how the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) should reform itself amid growing Taiwanese identification, Ma said that independence was neither a viable nor a necessary road because the Republic of China has existed for 105 years, so there was no need to declare independence again.
The overall impression of the interview was Ma sticking to the lie of the “1992 consensus” while toeing Beijing’s line.
He remains blind to the fact that his examples of Beijing’s “goodwill” rest on condition that Taiwan’s government considers itself part of China, evident by the fact that Taiwan takes part in the WHA as “Chinese Taipei,” which to the rest of the world implies that Taiwan is under Beijing’s heel.
Beijing has never ceased its encroachment on Taiwan’s identity and international space, and the many conciliatory remarks and China-friendly policies from Ma and his administration over the past eight years have only served Beijing’s agenda and deepened the international community’s perception that Taiwan is part of China.
What good is this fraudulent cross-strait “peace” based on a fictional consensus when it is achieved only through the failure of the government to defend Taiwan’s dignity and sovereignty?
An obdurate Ma continues to claim his modus vivendi of not provoking China is the best way to ensure this nation’s interests.
Delusional to the end. It is a sad legacy to leave.
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