In the run up to the second anniversary of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) inauguration, it’s time to reflect, in the realm of cross-strait relations, on his achievements, what sort of leadership he has built, what political tools he has used to implement his policies, as well as the risks associated with his policy implementation.
To promote the signing of an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China, Ma characterized the period of governance under the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) as “eight lost years” in his recent debate with DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). Such an allegation, together with the accusation of the DPP’s “closed-door” policy toward China, was invalid and politically misleading.
While the DPP government cemented the notion of “Taiwan identity” on the domestic front, substantial cross-strait economic and functional exchanges nevertheless continued. Taiwan’s reliance on trade with China even reached 40 percent, exceeding Japan and South Korea. Most of the negotiations and groundwork on direct cross-strait charter flights and tourism were conducted by the DPP government.
The average economic growth rate during the DPP’s eight years of governance reached 4.44 percent, while Ma’s first two years has seen minus 0.91 percent “growth.” The average unemployment rate under the DPP administration was 4.28 percent; that number goes up to 5.35 percent in Ma’s first two years.
Since taking office, Ma has placed priority on cross-strait policy above diplomatic policy and international trade policy. He has resorted to a rapid China-centric course that plays down Taiwan’s sovereignty or tentatively broaches “the sovereignty of the Republic of China,” while lacking a hedging policy toward China.
His administration has also been characterized by a lack of transparency in its decision-making. He has revived the so-called “1992 consensus,” proposed that Taiwan and China observe a policy of mutual non-denial, called for a diplomatic “truce” and defined cross-strait relations as “region-to-region” relations under the 1947 Constitution of the Republic of China.
On the premise of maintaining the “status quo,” Ma has pledged a “three noes” policy of “no independence, no unification and no use of force.” However, it cannot be denied that cross-strait tension has eased and that dialogue has resumed. So far, 12 agreements have been signed following negotiations between the Straits Exchange Foundation and China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait. Negotiations for an ECFA are also under way with Ma declaring that the pact will be signed next month.
These developments fulfill the international community’s hope for continued peaceful dialogue across the Strait, but at the same time they have widened domestic dispute on Ma’s China policy.
Ma could and should have used the 58 percent of popular votes he garnered in the 2008 presidential election, the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) control of the administration and its legislative majority to forge a consensus in Taiwan on cross-strait policy. Unfortunately, he has neither had the intention nor the ability to do so. Instead, he has deliberately fast-tracked his China-centric policy.
If it wasn’t for continued pressure from the opposition parties and civic groups during the past year, the KMT’s setbacks in local elections over the last six months and Ma’s plummeting approval ratings, we would still be waiting on him to explain his policy on an ECFA and to willingly participate in a debate with the opposition. Even though the Ma administration only recently pro forma opened dialogue with the public, it relies more on a top-down approach, packaging public support for an ECFA with a propaganda campaign.
RSS