President Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) inaugural speech can be summed up in two short phrases: Compromise outweighs conviction; emotion overrides reason.
Ma made satisfying China a priority in his speech, quoting Chinese President Hu Jintao’s (胡錦濤) three talks on cross-strait relations on March 26, April 12 and April 29, then concluding that “His views are very much in line with our own.”
And it came as no surprise that the speech was quickly approved by China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, despite it lacking the conviction that the president of a young democracy should deliver.
Is Ma not aware that the terms “controversies” and “differences” in Hu’s proposal to “shelve controversies” and “find commonalities despite differences” also imply that China is refusing to recognize Taiwan as an independent, sovereign state?
This is a Chinese trick to annex Taiwan through its United Front scheme — or maybe even military force. As a popularly elected president, Ma should insist that Taiwan’s independence and sovereignty brook no violation, disavowal or delay.
Ma should not forget that, in May 1996, Taiwan’s first popularly elected president, Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), clearly said at the beginning of his inaugural speech: “Today, 21.3 million compatriots are officially entering a new era, under which sovereignty is in the hands of the people!”
But Ma said: “In resolving cross-strait issues, what matters is not sovereignty but core values and way of life.”
Wrong. Even if core values and way of life on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait were to move toward unity in a distant future, China would have no right to annex Taiwan — just like the UK has no right to annex the US simply because they share similar core values and ways of life.
There are now two countries and two systems on the two sides of the Strait: a young democracy and an old, authoritarian communist state.
Taiwan would be better off introducing China to its advanced values and way of life so that some day they can be “two countries, one system.” But Taiwan should not annex China, and should not tolerate annexation by China, either now or in the future.
In his speech, Ma won the most applause by saying: “I am forever grateful to Taiwan’s society for accepting and nurturing this postwar immigrant. I will protect Taiwan with all my heart and resolutely move forward, and do my very best!”
This is an emotional appeal to the Taiwanese people, and such expression of true emotions is praiseworthy. Regretfully, emotions will only touch others temporarily, as they obscure paucity of reason. Unlike Lee, Ma failed to clearly point out the direction of Taiwan’s development in the next era.
Where will Ma’s “resolutely moving forward and doing his very best” lead Taiwan? He proposed no rational goal or strategy in his speech. He seems to pin Taiwan’s fate on consultations with Hu “over Taiwan’s international space and a possible cross-strait peace accord,” and finding “a way to attain peace and co-prosperity.”
But Ma should understand that, as China attempts to annex Taiwan by its United Front work and military force in conjunction with the “Anti-Secession” Law, peace and co-prosperity is merely empty talk.
Ma’s speech raised a question mark. With compromise outweighing conviction and emotion overriding reason, his proposal is, at best, a short-term fix.
After compromising with China and speaking emotionally to Taiwanese, then what? Where is he leading Taiwan?
Ruan Ming is a consultant at the Taiwan Research Institute.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
In a summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
The fallout from the mass recalls and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant continues to monopolize the news. The general consensus is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been bloodied and found wanting, and is in need of reflection and a course correction if it is to avoid electoral defeat. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has not emerged unscathed, either, but has the opportunity of making a relatively clean break. That depends on who the party on Oct. 18 picks to replace outgoing KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). What is certain is that, with the dust settling
RSS