Are Taiwanese fooled?
When my friends and I last visited our home country I was stunned to see that Taiwan is no longer the same free country since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was elected by the majority of the Taiwanese people. The local newspapers and TV stations appear to be out of touch and not reporting what has been happening in Taiwan. The economic crisis, the high suicide rate and a feeling of helplessness have deeply eroded the fledging democracy that the previous two presidents had built.
President Ma has not honored his campaign promises to improve the economy or to bring political reform and protect the sovereignty of Taiwan. Worse yet, he has made a mockery of the law by manipulating the judicial system. One example is the continuous persecution of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and his family. Ma has fooled the nation and the public many times. I wonder if the majority of the Taiwanese people agree with his actions.
Is he condoned as a ruler, or a dictator? I know he doesn’t act alone. He has loyal followers who work for him and execute his wishes.
During a recent court appearance, six prosecutors congratulated a not so credible witness after she apparently said something they were pleased with! It is obvious that prosecutors are not conforming to standards. The majority of the news media did not make this an issue. I have not seen or read about any law professors condemning the prosecutors. It is quite clear that the law schools in Taiwan are not giving the prosecutors a good education.
The blame for the current situation needs to be shared by the Taiwanese majority who voted for Ma and his Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and by those who were too apathetic to vote.
The problems of Ma and the KMT have been fueled by government officials who think they need to keep their position by implementing bad policies, which make people suffer.
Also to blame are Taiwanese who are short-sighted and rush for personal short-term financial gain by transferring hard-earned economic prowess to China at the cost of long-term political stability and independence. Even those who previously were pro-Taiwan are caving in to China’s demands now that their economic and financial survival depends on low-wage factories.
Am I mad? Yes, I am furious. Do Ministry of Justice officials, law school professors and the many respected intellectuals have consciences? Why are they not speaking up and telling people the truth? If Ma is fooling the people, it should be pointed out they are also allowing themselves to be fooled.
TIEN C. CHENG
Libertyville, Illinois
History backs ECFA plan
The debate over the economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) reminds me of the debate surrounding the free trade agreement between Canada and the US: After the FTA was signed on Oct. 4, 1988, there was an election in Canada in which Conservatives were in favor of the FTA and the Liberals were opposed.
The Conservatives won and the FTA was ratified. Four years later, the FTA was expanded to include Mexico and became the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Then, on Oct. 25, 1993, there was another election in which the Liberals won saying they were opposed to NAFTA, but it nevertheless went into effect on Jan. 1, 1994.
My point is that you shouldn’t always believe what opposition politicians say when they claim that the government has negotiated a bad deal that will cost jobs, because they are just saying these things just for the sake of opposing the government.
It would actually be very scary if the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) really did believe their protectionist propaganda, as most economists these days know that protectionism isn’t the way to go.
Protectionism is generally considered the main reason why there was an economic depression in the 1930s.
Indeed, it is not the KMT that is lying here: The claim from the KMT is that China is actively negotiating free trade deals with other Asian countries while Taiwan is unable to sign any trade deals because Asian countries don’t want to risk their trade status with China.
This is all true: By signing the ECFA with China, Taiwan would be free to negotiate trade deals with other Asian countries without the risk of offending Beijing. The alternative would be for Taiwan to end up as an isolated country like Cuba or North Korea. Is that really what people in the DPP want?
Protectionism is based on an out-of-date, disproved economic theory. The basic assumption is that each side in a negotiation has its own interests and that one side in a negotiation must win at the expense of the other.
This flies in the face of 59 years of modern economic theory and ignores the fact that the two sides may have mutual interests that could form the basis of an agreement.
The reality of the situation is that free trade deals are designed to be win-win situations.
The members of the DPP should be ashamed of themselves for lying to the people of Taiwan for the sake of political gain.
Then again, they are only doing what politicians all over the world do. I can understand this mentality, but I do not condone it.
MARTIN PHIPPS
Taichung
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS