Before the March 22 election, president-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) cherished “Taiwan” like a passport to enter the Presidential Office. With his broken Taiwanese, he succeeded in convincing many Taiwanese to vote for him.
After Ma won the election, unfortunately, he has begun to “expose his horse feet.”
Rightfully, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have criticized Ma and say he is now treating Taiwan like toilet paper (“Ma is treating ‘Taiwan’ like toilet paper, DPP says,” April 4, page 2).
Before the election, Ma kept saying Taiwan this, Taiwan that and whatever he said was all for “Taiwan.” His campaign slogan was “Taiwan marches forward.” Wisely, he never mentioned a single word of the “Republic of China” or “China” in his campaign speeches.
Ma’s attitude toward Taiwan has reversed. He has practically abandoned the Taiwanese in his speeches. He has begun to talk about the so-called “1991 consensus and one China with respective descriptions,” “acceptance of one nation,” and possible name changes of “Taiwan Postal Service” to “Chinese Postal Service” and “Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall” to “Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall.”
Democracy, rather than dictatorship or individual worship, is the value of Taiwan. The new president should never move backward or “dismantle the bridge after he has crossed the river.”
“When the law meets Ma, it makes a turn” is a popular saying in Taiwan now. In the peoples minds, even if Ma does or says something wrong, he is not guilty before pan-blue judges and acceptable to the pan-blue news media. No one is above the law. This is a golden rule for any administration.
The DPP should be saluted for their sportsmanship after losing both the legislative elections and the presidential election. They have not staged any protests or demonstrations.
Charles Hong
Columbus, Ohio
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing