During a speech on Saturday last week at a discussion forum titled “Resume cross-strait air travel: post-pandemic opportunity,” former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) had criticized him for being pro-China and “selling out” Taiwan.
Paradoxically, instead of reducing reliance on China, the government had increased Taiwan’s dependence on it, Ma said, adding that Taiwanese exports to China last year reached a historic high. This shows that President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration is more pro-China and has “sold out” Taiwan to a greater degree than he had, Ma said.
However, according to a report published last year, relying on trade volume alone is insufficient to demonstrate an increased dependence on China’s economy.
In a Jan. 4 article in the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister paper), I showed that Taiwan’s record exports to China was a side effect of US restrictions on the export of technology to China and supply chains relocating as a result of the trade dispute. China has been forced to purchase large quantities of semiconductor and electronic components from Taiwan.
In other words, far from demonstrating Taiwan’s increased reliance on China, last year’s record exports showed that China needs Taiwan. Data released by the Ministry of Economic Affairs has also poured cold water on Ma’s claim, pointing out that the whole world relies on Taiwanese chips.
Ma also said that the US and European countries are increasingly concerned that a conflict between China and Taiwan could break out within the next six years. Ma sought to pin the blame for this entirely on the shoulders of Tsai, and called on her to return to the so-called “1992 consensus” so that dialogue between Taipei and Beijing could resume.
Ma appears to have forgotten that during his tenure as Mainland Affairs Council deputy minister, he wrote an article for the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) official newspaper Central Daily News, published on Nov. 6, 1992, which contained the following frank admission: “China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) is well aware that both sides have different formulations for ‘one China’ and that there is no convergence. Despite this, Beijing constantly puts it about that both sides have reached a consensus.”
Ma’s “one China, each side with its own interpretation” formula, which enjoys a sacred status within the KMT, was dashed by former ARATS vice chairman Tang Shubei (唐樹備) when he in 1998 said that the “Taiwan side’s so-called one China formula is unconnected to reality.”
If that were not conclusive enough, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) hammered the final nail in the coffin in a speech on Jan. 2 last year to mark the 40th anniversary of China’s “Message to Compatriots in Taiwan.”
Xi in his “five points” proposed to create a “Taiwanese version of the one country, two systems framework.”
This included a redefinition of the “1992 consensus” to mean that “both sides of the Strait belong to one China and will work jointly to seek national unification on the ‘one China’ principle.”
Not only is there no consensus over the “consensus,” Xi has redefined the mythical meeting of minds as a manifesto for unification with China.
It is utterly baffling why Ma continues to parrot China’s Taiwan Affairs Office propaganda, cherry-pick economic data and distort the truth about the “1992 consensus.”
Why does a former president persist in coordinating with Beijing to sow confusion among the public?
Liou Je-wei is a student at National Taiwan University’s Graduate Institute of Political Science.
Translated by Edward Jones
Would China attack Taiwan during the American lame duck period? For months, there have been worries that Beijing would seek to take advantage of an American president slowed by age and a potentially chaotic transition to make a move on Taiwan. In the wake of an American election that ended without drama, that far-fetched scenario will likely prove purely hypothetical. But there is a crisis brewing elsewhere in Asia — one with which US president-elect Donald Trump may have to deal during his first days in office. Tensions between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea have been at
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
Historically, in Taiwan, and in present-day China, many people advocate the idea of a “great Chinese nation.” It is not worth arguing with extremists to say that the so-called “great Chinese nation” is a fabricated political myth rather than an academic term. Rather, they should read the following excerpt from Chinese writer Lin Yutang’s (林語堂) book My Country and My People: “It is also inevitable that I should offend many writers about China, especially my own countrymen and great patriots. These great patriots — I have nothing to do with them, for their god is not my god, and their patriotism is
RSS