President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) endured possibly the biggest setback of his political career on Tuesday when, after months of to-ing and fro-ing, the legislature finally came around to re-imposing restrictions on certain US beef products.
Not only was the move a slap in the face for the executive — which had negotiated the deal with the US — it was also a severe blow for Ma as Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman. KMT legislators put on a show of defiance in passing the amendment, while also laying down the law for the executive on future handling of beef imports.
The reversal not only humiliated Ma, but also made him look weaker than ever.
One would have been hard pressed, however, to notice this latest blow to his credibility, as Ma on Tuesday refused to accept any of the blame for the beef debacle, attributing the problem solely to bad government communication with the public.
While lack of communication is partly responsible for the current shambles, the biggest objection for most people was the manner in which the protocol was negotiated.
In striking the deal in secret, the government ignored the possibility of negative public reaction, seeming only to be concerned about what it could get in return from the US for lifting the ban. Washington had been stalling on several issues to get the ban lifted, but to fail to take into consideration the reaction of the public and the legislature was a fatal miscalculation.
Ma cannot blame legislators for this, as they were only bowing to pressure from the public, who remain ill-informed about the safety of US beef.
It was the government’s task to ensure people were informed before they announced the protocol, not negotiate the deal behind closed doors and try to explain away any fears after more US beef was allowed to enter the market.
The failure to translate the protocol into Chinese was another big mistake as this left many feeling that the government had something to hide.
Ma’s reluctance to take the heat for his administration’s latest disaster is understandable as his popularity is already at rock bottom, but the government’s passiveness throughout the whole episode has been breathtaking.
The protocol was signed in October and came into effect in early November, by which time there was already substantial opposition. But there were few serious attempts to douse the flames during the ensuing months, with the executive apparently believing the fuss would die down.
What is even more unbelievable is that the government now looks as if it is going to make the same mistakes with its planned economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China. Despite all its efforts, most people still have no clue what the pact will contain.
The most surprising thing is that all this is happening under the watch of a man who previously placed so much importance on communication.
It is no wonder, with his popularity at its lowest ebb and his authority similarly plunging, that Ma recently brought his communications guru King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) back into the fold.
The way things are going, Ma will need all King’s media savviness if he is to stand any chance of rescuing things in time for 2012.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS