A government requires public trust. This becomes obvious if we look at the latest opinion poll following President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) taking on the role of chairman of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
More than 50 percent of respondents thought it was unlikely that the KMT would be able to eliminate “black gold” politics and be seen as a clean and uncorrupt party. This shows that bad habits die hard. A case in point is the recent revoking of the election of two KMT Central Standing Committee members for bribing party delegates to win their seats. Cash and a vast array of gifts changed hands.
In an interview at the Presidential Office with Reuters on Oct. 19, Ma said he would not rule out meeting Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤). His stance won the approval of 43.9 percent of respondents of the recent poll, while 36.5 percent opposed it. This shows Ma must increase public trust in his cross-strait policies if a “Ma-Hu” meeting is to have any significance and to push ahead with an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China.
Ma’s approval ratings plummeted in the wake of Typhoon Morakot, which caused the worst floods in 50 years. We should not forget that he won last year’s election mainly because of his promises to clamp down on corruption and ease strained cross-strait relations.
Since Ma took power, however, the administration’s ineffective anti-corruption efforts have angered the public. The “sunshine bills” have been watered down, and three months after Ma vowed to fight corruption, a report is all that has been produced. Even the promise to return the KMT’s stolen assets to the national coffers when taking over the chairmanship turned out to be a symbolic statement. His attempts to restore party discipline have only caused widespread agitation. Since Ma’s “6-3-3” election promise of 6 percent annual economic growth, US$30,000 in per capita income by 2012 and a 3 percent unemployment rate fell through, unemployment has remained high.
A recent survey by Hong Kong-based HR Business Solutions shows that employers in the Asia-Pacific region plan to raise salaries over the next two years, but pay increases in Taiwan will only be 2.5 percent, fifth from the end among the 19 polled economies.
It also seems cross-strait relations have moved too fast. Even international media outlets have questioned whether Ma’s cross-strait policies lean too much toward China. US commentator Philip Bowring said in the Oct. 6 edition of the New York Times that: “Taiwan’s position as a de facto independent state seems to be morphing very slowly toward the ‘one country, two systems’ status of Hong Kong.”
Xu Bodong (徐博東), director of the Taiwan Research Institute at Peking University, said that “Beijing had high hopes for Ma, but so far, disappointments outweigh hope.”
Ma’s attempt to push through the signing of an ECFA has run into public opposition and it is being boycotted by the opposition. The root cause of this problem lies in the lack of public trust. The details of the proposed pact remain opaque, and it is evident it would have an adverse impact on Taiwan’s industry.
An ECFA assessment report released by the government is not convincing. Newspapers have reported that Beijing’s Ministry of Commerce estimates that China would benefit four times more than Taiwan from an ECFA as its GDP would increase by 0.63 percent — more than US$27 billion — under tariff concessions.
On the other hand, a study conducted by the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research in Taiwan estimates that an ECFA would increase this country’s GDP by 1.72 percent — only US$6.9 billion. If there are complementary measures to create a win-win situation, have these been clearly explained?
The main reason Ma’s cross-strait policy has stalled is not Beijing’s united front tactics, but Ma’s failure to build credibility within his party. Taiwan has witnessed two transfers of power, and both have proved that access to political resources will not buy public support. Sovereignty still rests with the people.
Although improving cross-strait relations is important, it is not as important as gaining public trust and improving living standards.
Lu I-ming is the former publisher and president of Taiwan Shin Sheng Daily News.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS