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.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
RSS