“Upon being sworn in, I had an epiphany about the significance of accepting responsibility for the 23 million people of Taiwan. Although I have never felt so honored in my life, this is the heaviest responsibility that I have ever shouldered,” President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said in his inaugural speech on May 20.
However, looking at his recent rhetoric and action — or inaction — many have begun to wonder whether he has any inkling of the gravity of his new title.
On Tuesday, in response to media queries on how he would address China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) if the two meet when Chen visits Taiwan later this year, Ma said: “I would address him as Mr Chen and he could address me as Mr Ma. I think that’s the best way.” Ma added that as long as both sides are on equal footing, there should be no reason to believe that the nation’s sovereignty would be slighted.
It is nothing less than shocking to see how easily Ma would compromise himself and his title — an honor bestowed upon him by 7,658,724 voters — to please Beijing.
According to Ma’s logic, his approach is the best way to avoid “controversy.” But if doing so involves giving up one’s official title in one’s own country, what else can Taiwanese expect from the president when he travels abroad?
Ma seems to take pleasure in lecturing others about the Constitution of the Republic of China, saying that it is more important to respect and practice the words of the Constitution than to amend them.
“As the president of the Republic of China, my most solemn duty is to safeguard the Constitution … My top priority is to affirm the authority of the Constitution and show the value of abiding by it,” Ma said during his inauguration.
If Ma meant what he said, then he had better take a look at Chapter 4, Article 35 of the Constitution, as it states that: “The president shall be the head of the State, and shall represent the Republic of China in foreign relations.”
The so-called “1992 consensus,” which the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government so often trumpets as the basis for cross-strait negotiation, should provide Ma with the confidence he needs to use his proper title. The KMT administration insists that Taipei and Beijing have reached a “consensus,” allowing each side of the Strait to have its own definition of “one China.” As such, there should be nothing wrong with Chinese officials referring to Ma as the president of the ROC.
If Ma continues to compromise his role as head of state, we can expect that the ROC flag will be removed from the Presidential Office when Chen visits.
As farmers struggle to cope with floods in southern Taiwan and as ordinary people face rising commodity prices, Ma has remained silent while his supporters defend his lack of involvement, arguing that he is acting in line with the Constitution and that his responsibilities lie with diplomacy and cross-strait relations.
But Ma’s continued silence over the Diaoyutai (釣魚台) islands incident makes a travesty of that proposition, as the escalating conflict has everything to do with diplomacy and protecting national interests.
A president represents a country’s sovereignty. If Ma cannot understand that and if he cannot act in a manner commensurate with his title, then he is unworthy of the position.
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