It was a mistake for President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to avoid the anti-government rally in Taipei on Saturday by leaving the city. It is reasonable for the public to express their anxiety and dissatisfaction with an administration’s policies through a demonstration, and those in power have no justification for turning a deaf ear.
Toxic milk powder from China has caused public apprehension over food safety. Quality and safety problems with Chinese food products are nothing new, but the government’s reaction has been disappointing. The rally protesting tainted Chinese products reflected the majority of public opinion.
Another cause of anxiety has been the Ma administration’s failure to safeguard Taiwan’s sovereignty. A recent public opinion poll found that 28 percent of respondents thought cross-strait exchanges have increased drastically, 38.6 percent thought the government’s policies have harmed Taiwan’s sovereignty and 47 percent of those who said they were politically neutral thought Taiwan’s sovereignty had been compromised — the highest percentage ever.
Ma’s main policy goal has been cross-strait reconciliation, and yet the public thinks Taiwan has lost more than it has gained. The economic benefits of opening up Taiwan to Chinese tourists have not met expectations, the Chinese market has not created major business opportunities and Taiwanese exports to China have decreased. There has been a huge discrepancy between the public’s expectations and Ma’s efforts to protect national sovereignty and seek international space. Many people think Ma is naive and weak, that his policies lean too far toward China and that he lacks courage and tactics to deal effectively with Beijing’s leaders. They do not believe he will safeguard Taiwan.
The government has failed to respond to public worries in timely fashion, or to conduct effective dialog with the Democratic Progressive Party and its allies. The governing and opposition parties have been drifting further apart, to the extent that many people have the impression that Ma and his government care more about what China thinks than they do about the worries of ordinary Taiwanese.
Many people have decided to take matters into their own hands, come out onto the streets and make their voices heard. They hope to counter what they see as Ma’s mistaken policies. The fact that hundreds of thousands of people attended Saturday’s demonstration proves that there is significant public backing for the opposition’s demands. Further protests are expected when Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) visits.
Of course there is always an adversarial relationship between governing and opposition parties, but public opinion cannot be dismissed as nothing more than allegiance to unification or independence ideologies. Above all, when the government finds itself in a weak position in negotiations with China, such protests can provide it with powerful moral and strategic backing.
Those in power must take into consideration the interests of the nation and people as a whole. They need to see beyond the surface turmoil of political strife and observe public opinion trends at the grassroots.
When masses of people come out to express their worries about the government’s cross-strait policy, Ma and his officials should be listening with attention and humility. They should strengthen dialog with those holding different opinions and they should make the necessary adjustments to their policies. Without first establishing consensus and mutual trust within Taiwan, Taiwanese negotiators will have no cards in their hands when dealing with China.
Ma should keep in mind at all times that, since it was the people who entrusted him with the reins of government, he is obliged to take responsibility for the people as a whole.
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
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
RSS