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.
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS