Did The Associated Press (AP) really misquote President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in its exclusive interview with him on Tuesday?
That’s what the Presidential Office said, with Ma calling an impromptu press conference on Tuesday night to argue the case. Ma said that in the interview, he did not link cross-strait political talks to a second term if he were to be re-elected, nor did he set China’s implementation of democracy and respect for human rights as a precondition for Taiwan’s unification with China.
Anyone who cares to take a look at the interview transcript can come to their own opinion on whether AP put words in Ma’s mouth, or merely made a reasonable deduction based on Ma’s remarks.
While Ma sought to correct the section of the interview in which AP quoted him as saying “any political union would require Beijing to adopt democracy and respect for human rights,” a closer look at the transcript has many people wondering where exactly he was misquoted and whether it warrants a correction.
In the transcript Ma responded to AP’s query that “I think what I heard you say was that a truly democratic system of government in the mainland is the only way that the Taiwanese people will engage in a conversation about unification” by saying: “I think that will help.”
Even though Ma added that “there’s no guarantee how long it would take for the people of Taiwan to believe it’s time to do so” and cited opinion polls showing that a majority of Taiwanese favor the status quo, it is nonetheless beyond belief that he would take the liberty to suggest that Taiwanese would want unification with China were Beijing to embrace democracy and respect for human rights.
Whatever happened to Ma’s campaign pledge on respecting the right of Taiwanese to determine their own future? In a growing trend, polls conducted by National Chengchi University’s Election Study Center have shown that more people in Taiwan identify themselves as Taiwanese (52 percent as of June), compared with those who consider themselves Chinese (3.8 percent as of June).
Ma also said he did not in the interview connect cross-strait political talks with a second term.
A closer look at the transcript, however, clearly shows Ma responding to an AP question — “if economic issues are resolved during your second term, during that term, you might move on to political questions?” — by saying: “As I said, it depends on how fast we move, whether these issues are satisfactorily resolved.”
It is therefore reasonable for the AP to quote Ma as having “suggested that those political talks could start as early as a second four-year term if he wins re-election in 2012.”
On Tuesday night, Ma stressed that what he said was that “the government would not start political talks with China before it completed negotiations on economic issues.”
However, that very statement rings a horrifying tune to the ears of many. After all, at what point will the Ma government determine that economic issues have been resolved? Has the cross-strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) signed in June borne fruit for Taiwan or improved Taiwan’s economy? What about the trade imbalance between China and Taiwan?
Neither the legislature nor Taiwanese voters have authorized Ma to represent the country in moving on to political talks should economic issues be taken care of in his first term.
In view of Ma’s latest comments — regardless of what corrections he seeks to make after the fact — one can’t help but feel pessimism regarding the future of Taiwan under his China-friendly governance.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS