It is two years into the reign of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) the incompetent, and it appears the one-trick pony is getting desperate to defend his efforts to drag Taiwan into economic dependency on the People’s Republic of China (PRC) through an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA).
The latest effort of Ma and his combined hired gun and snake-oil salesman King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) is a string of expensive TV ads describing how the country will totally lose its competitiveness if it does not give the government a blank check to sign an ECFA.
Apparently, if an agreement is not signed by June, it is all over for Taiwan. Can you believe such absurdities?
For almost two years, Ma’s Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government has been preaching that not only is an ECFA absolutely essential, but that it is being completely transparent about the agreement.
Why, then, after two years of “transparency” does no one know the contents of the ECFA? Why, then, after two years of transparency does no one know what its commitments are?
Why do negotiations remain so secret and why is there an absolute rush to get it all done and signed as quickly as possible?
The bottom line is that if an ECFA is so absolutely essential and so obvious that it should be as plain as the nose on one’s face, why then does the Ma government need to be sponsoring high-powered TV ads to sell this “obviousness”?
At first, Ma’s government took the position that an ECFA was not a matter of concern for the legislature; that it was strictly a trade matter to be arranged by the government.
Back then, it was something similar to the secret trade negotiations on US beef done by former National Security Council chief Su Chi (蘇起) that were supposed to be for the good of the nation. Everyone knows how that ended up.
Then, when Ma’s go-it-alone tactics did not work, he grudgingly bowed to pressure and said that his government would bring the agreement before the legislature for its stamp of approval — after it is signed.
Other questions arise about this so-called obvious need and rush by Ma.
Ma’s government has also said that it would be willing to meet with anyone at any time to explain the agreement, yet Ma has long avoided an open discussion with Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and certainly won’t allow the ECFA to be made subject to a referendum.
All that has come of the government’s meet-anyone-at-any-time proposals is the continued propaganda that ECFA is absolutely necessary.
Necessary for what? Secret commitments to China?
The latest is that Taiwan’s TV stations are being bombarded with ads reminiscent of late Qing-era politics, saying how the country must absolutely sign an ECFA or it will sink. The ad states that if Taiwan does not sign an ECFA, it will be marginalized like North Korea.
Why are these ads so necessary to “sell” what Ma claims is so obvious? Perhaps more importantly, who is paying for these ads? The KMT, Taiwanese taxpayers or worse, the PRC?
These are the troubles that beset Taiwan as the one-trick pony refuses to let the people vote on a referendum over something so crucial to their future.
These are the matters that Ma insists must be decided before June.
Does Ma have a two-year window from China that expires at that time?
Jerome Keating is a writer based in Taipei.
“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
On Monday last week, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Raymond Greene met with Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers to discuss Taiwan-US defense cooperation, on the heels of a separate meeting the previous week with Minister of National Defense Minister Wellington Koo (顧立雄). Departing from the usual convention of not advertising interactions with senior national security officials, the AIT posted photos of both meetings on Facebook, seemingly putting the ruling and opposition parties on public notice to obtain bipartisan support for Taiwan’s defense budget and other initiatives. Over the past year, increasing Taiwan’s defense budget has been a sore spot
Media said that several pan-blue figures — among them former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), former KMT legislator Lee De-wei (李德維), former KMT Central Committee member Vincent Hsu (徐正文), New Party Chairman Wu Cheng-tien (吳成典), former New Party legislator Chou chuan (周荃) and New Party Deputy Secretary-General You Chih-pin (游智彬) — yesterday attended the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) military parade commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. China’s Xinhua news agency reported that foreign leaders were present alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean leader Kim
RSS