“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.
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
RSS