As the first hundreds of Chinese tourists begin their tour of Taiwan and onlookers puzzle over the word qiezi (茄子) that precedes clicking cameras, academics and officials on the other side of the Strait are starting to get all kinds of dangerous ideas.
Never mind China’s deployment of more modern surface-to-air missiles that threaten Taiwan’s airspace, or the fact that cross-strait flights are skewed in favor of Chinese airlines and eat into Taiwanese airlines’ income, or that the promises of an economic miracle from Chinese tourism seem to be getting flimsier by the day. Such rapacious behavior on Beijing’s part was to be expected and the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), intoxicated with the promise of better relations with China, seems to have fallen for the hype hook, line and sinker.
Beyond all this, there is now a perception, as reported by Christopher Hughes of the London School of Economics, that Ma has finally adopted Beijing’s views and will do what it wants him to do — that he has become Beijing’s man in Taipei, who will open the gates of the castle and bring about the dream of annexation.
Such thinkers could be forgiven for entertaining this view, since their understanding of politics has evidently been shaped by the authoritarian system that has ruled their society since they were born. But to expect that a single individual in a democracy — even a president — can do what he wants at the expense of the millions of people who voted, and did not vote, for him is confabulatory. It explains why unification will never work — at least not while China remains an authoritarian state.
Despite the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) ill-concealed contempt for the legislature and other branches of government, Taiwan remains a country of laws, with a Constitution that prevents the executive from exercising undue power or its actions from threatening national security. In other words, the KMT for the moment is barred from operating as a party-state.
While the manner in which the KMT has conducted diplomacy with Beijing since May 20 has, by relying on unofficial channels, come close to breaking the law, Taiwanese would never allow Ma to utilize his power in a way that puts the survival of the state in danger. If he did, other officials within the KMT, such as Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), would be expected to intervene; if they did not, the credibility of the KMT as a Taiwanese political party would be dealt a fatal blow.
Despite the flexibility he has shown to date on matters of sovereignty, Ma is not Beijing’s man, some brainwashed Manchurian candidate that can be radio‑controlled to do its bidding. Even if he were, the checks and balances of a democratic system would stop him before he could do irreparable damage to Taiwan’s sovereignty. Nevertheless, the comments made by Chinese academics and officials run the risk of reinforcing the perception that he is a tool of China, which can only make it more difficult for him to exercise his presidential powers.
Even so, vigilance is in order. The president’s every move, along with those of his immediate circle, must be scrutinized, and any indication that he is about to act in China’s interests rather than Taiwan’s should be met with the strongest opposition.
In the closing weeks of 2000, an army of Singaporean government officials descended on Washington to make good on a handshake between then-US President Bill Clinton and Singaporean Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong (吳作棟). They had agreed to strike an FTA after a round of golf in Brunei that past November. Running a small city-state, Singapore’s leaders and their diplomats live with their ear to the ground, attuned to the slightest geopolitical movements. They were motivated then by a big-picture strategic concern — keeping the US embedded in their region. An FTA they thought would help do that. It worked. Clinton’s successor,
On Oct. 7, the Chinese embassy in New Delhi sent letters to the Indian media asking them to refrain from calling Taiwan a country while reporting on its 109th National Day, which fell on Saturday last week. This move backfired and, on the contrary, contributed to the immense popularity of Taiwan among Indians, leading to an outpouring of congratulations for it on Twitter. Asked about the letter, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs said: “There is a free media that reports on issues as it sees fit.” Bharatiya Janata Party spokesman Tajinder Singh Bagga put up several banners outside the
On Oct. 6, the UN Committee on Human Rights released a statement on the concentration camps in China’s Xinjiang region in which at least 1 million Uighurs and other ethnic minorities are incarcerated. On the same day, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) was telling delegates at a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) meeting that “happiness among the people in Xinjiang is on the rise.” It was a stark reminder of the CCP’s longstanding practice of trampling on human rights and deceiving the world. In October last year, the Taiwan East Turkestan Association and the Taiwan Friends of Tibet held an event titled
In a Facebook post on Wednesday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) wrote: “The KMT must fall for Taiwan to improve.’ Allow me to ask the question again: Is this really true?” It matters not how many times Hsu asks the question, my answer will always be the same: “Yes, the KMT must be toppled for Taiwan to improve.” In the lengthy Facebook post, titled “What were those born in the 1980s guilty of?” Hsu harked back to the idealistic aspirations of the 2014 Sunflower movement before heaping opprobrium on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP)