President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is both president of Taiwan and chairman of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). When it comes to the so-called Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), which he has yet to fully explain to the Taiwanese public, he seems to be favoring the latter role. He recently bundled off former KMT chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) to Beijing on his behalf to speak with Ma’s counterpart, Chinese President and General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Hu Jintao (胡錦濤). Wu’s remit was to convey Chairman Ma’s gratitude and to report his successful reconstruction of the party-state system, meaning he not only has his party, but also the public, under his thumb. Shades of Chairman Mao (毛澤東), surely?
Ma is happy to send politicians without any official position on official errands while he himself orchestrates affairs. His version of a China policy is essentially allowing his party to become a political appendage of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, doing the bidding of the Chinese communists. His out-of-hand rejections of petitions for a referendum on the ECFA, signed by hundreds of thousands of people, and the ECFA’s smooth passage through the legislature by a band of yes-men and women, are an affront to democracy in Taiwan.
Ma says the ECFA has nothing to do with politics, but General Secretary Hu did nevertheless extend a massive hand to him through his minion Wu, bringing up the possibility of further CCP-KMT cross-party talks. Hu said the ECFA showed the possibility of the two parties moving forward on cross-strait relations, based on a shared political foundation of opposing independence for Taiwan and adhering to the “1992 consensus.”
Hu also brought up the “one China” principle, and in doing so effectively introduced a political element into the ECFA. If Ma disagrees with Hu’s interpretation here, he ought to come forward and openly denounce it, or the ECFA will be forever associated with this political condition.
Instead, Ma and Wu simply appeal to the so-called “1992 consensus,” a cooked-up interpretation of the situation that betrays Taiwan’s sovereignty, showing precious little regard for Taiwan’s democracy. They believe that the KMT represents Taiwan, and say that the two-party high-level exchanges are indispensable to the furthering of cross-strait relations.
Beijing wants to characterize the “Taiwan question” as a residue of the old civil war fought between the Chinese Nationalists — the KMT — and the Chinese Communists, and is trying to wrest sovereignty from Taiwan. Whether or not Taiwanese give up their sovereignty to China is something that only they can decide: Taiwan’s democracy and future are not for the CCP or KMT to decide for their own mutual benefit.
If Ma truly has the public’s interests at heart he should be sincere with them. He seems to get all hot under the collar whenever the opposition questions his actions. Surely he can’t be stupid enough not to realize that this is precisely what an opposition party is supposed to do. The government’s responsibility is to lay out their plans and explain what they are doing, clearly and concisely, should any objections be raised.
In order to neutralize Hu’s political characterization of the ECFA, Ma should make the minutes of the negotiations available to the legislature and announce once and for all that there are absolutely no political preconditions, or secret understandings, behind the ECFA. Finally, the ECFA should be decided by a public referendum. The KMT have already shown themselves to be an appendage of the CCP, so they are no longer qualified to represent Taiwan.
James Wang is a political commentator.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
Heavy rains over the past week have overwhelmed southern and central Taiwan, with flooding, landslides, road closures, damage to property and the evacuations of thousands of people. Schools and offices were closed in some areas due to the deluge throughout the week. The heavy downpours brought by the southwest monsoon are a second blow to a region still recovering from last month’s Typhoon Danas. Strong winds and significant rain from the storm inflicted more than NT$2.6 billion (US$86.6 million) in agricultural losses, and damaged more than 23,000 roofs and a record high of nearly 2,500 utility poles, causing power outages. As
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS