President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) once criticized former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) push for a national name change, saying Chen ruined the issue by causing a sensation. He was right: Some Taiwanese organizations in the US, such as the Taiwan External Trade Development Council, had already changed their names, but after Chen’s move, Washington blocked any further changes.
Some independence fundamentalists feel that the name change/sovereignty issues are of overriding importance. Focused on politics, they are too impatient to make detailed plans, instead proposing rash, rough-hewn policies. Rather than speeding things up, this slows everything down. Similarly, the pan-blue camp is inflexible in pushing its own economic interests in cross-strait relations: Once again, “haste makes waste.”
Last Friday, Ma said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal that Taiwan should speed up negotiations for fly-beyond rights via China to Europe — a suggestion that was criticized by airlines as rash. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government pushed something similar in the 1990s, when then-premier Vincent Siew’s (蕭萬長) Cabinet wanted to make Taiwan an offshore transshipment center. However, the half-baked approach resulted in China agreeing to only open smaller ports like Xiamen and Wenzhou for indirect links with Keelung and Kaohsiung, while the five biggest ports remained closed to Taiwan.
In his book Governing by Expertise, Siew describes Kaohsiung harbor’s superior geographical location as an Asia-Pacific transshipment center and how Chinese harbors could ship cargo on small and medium-sized ships to Kaohsiung for transshipment, turning them into Kaohsiung satellite ports.
Siew also said that direct flights would mean Chinese electronics components would be shipped to Taiwan for value-added assembly prior to export. The reality is after the completion of Shanghai’s Yangshan port, cargo that used to be transshipped in Busan, South Korea, is returning to Shanghai, proving how ridiculous it is to view Chinese ports as satellites.
The Asia-Pacific transshipment center idea shows that contrary to popular opinion, the KMT is not always willing to be taken advantage of by China. Instead, it is drafting unrealistic plans on how Taiwan can unilaterally take advantage of China economically while giving in politically. The result is the KMT loses political capital, while the establishment of cross-strait economic order cannot be established.
Ma is right to demand that Taiwanese airlines obtain fly-beyond rights to Europe. He forgets, however, that Taiwan should allow China the same rights to serve the US from Taiwan. Business must be a win-win proposition to succeed.
Sea transportation talks with China are another example of diving into talks without thorough planning. Some politicians and businesses believe that Taiwan should designate cross-strait transportation as a domestic matter to be able to monopolize business and bar foreign carriers. The result would be that Taiwan loses big business to gain a small advantage.
For cross-strait sea and air transportation to benefit both sides of the Taiwan Strait, there must be a global strategy. Ma’s administration thinks that Taiwan’s global interests lie in China alone, and it wants to monopolize cross-strait benefits without trying to understand where China’s interests lie. If the government doesn’t change this approach, cross-strait misunderstandings will only proliferate and nothing will be achieved.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG AND PERRY SVENSSON
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
The inter-Korean relationship, long defined by national division, offers the clearest mirror within East Asia for cross-strait relations. Yet even there, reunification language is breaking down. The South Korean government disclosed on Wednesday last week that North Korea’s constitutional revision in March had deleted references to reunification and added a territorial clause defining its border with South Korea. South Korea is also seriously debating whether national reunification with North Korea is still necessary. On April 27, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung marked the eighth anniversary of the Panmunjom Declaration, the 2018 inter-Korean agreement in which the two Koreas pledged to
I wrote this before US President Donald Trump embarked on his uneventful state visit to China on Thursday. So, I shall confine my observations to the joint US-Philippine military exercise of April 20 through May 8, known collectively as “Balikatan 2026.” This year’s Balikatan was notable for its “firsts.” First, it was conducted primarily with Taiwan in mind, not the Philippines or even the South China Sea. It also showed that in the Pacific, America’s alliance network is still robust. Allies are enthusiastic about America’s renewed leadership in the region. Nine decades ago, in 1936, America had neither military strength